Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctors "Fire" Vaccine Refusers

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the a-vaccine-neigh-keeps-the-doctor-away dept.

Medicine 1271

phantomfive writes "In a study of Connecticut pediatricians published last year, some 30% of 133 doctors said they had asked a family to leave their practice for vaccine refusal. Pediatricians are getting tired of families avoiding vaccines, which puts their children at higher risk of disease. From the article: 'Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices, raising questions about a doctor's responsibility to these patients. Medical associations don't recommend such patient bans, but the practice appears to be growing, according to vaccine researchers.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Consider me fired. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048755)

Goodbye useless vaccines.

Re:Consider me fired. (5, Funny)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048941)

You should have said "Goodbye, cruel world".

as well they (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048775)

should - maroon tin-foil parents are going to spread disease unless they get their foul, miscreant spam vaccinated

Re:as well they (4, Insightful)

no1home (1271260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048861)

Tin-foil comes in maroon? Can I get it in purple instead?

On a side note, I agree that it's the doctors' right to see what patients they want (as long as the decision is not based on certain criteria like race/color/religion/gender/etc). Stupidity is not a protected group.

Re:as well they (4, Funny)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049111)

I'm fairly certain several types of doctor can discriminate against patients by sex.

Re:as well they (-1, Flamebait)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049145)

Stupidity is not a protected group.

Don't be so sure of that... [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:as well they (4, Funny)

Whorhay (1319089) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049269)

"Stupidity is not a protected group" Wait, I thought you said they couldn't/shouldn't discriminate based on religion.

Re:as well they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049295)

Further, not vaccinating means the patient is more likely to burden the office as they are more likely to get sick. The doctor should have every right to refuse high risk patients just like insurance companies have the same right.

Seems reasonable.. (5, Insightful)

GreyLurk (35139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048795)

Don't like my medical advice? Fine, go somewhere else. Seems perfectly reasonable and rational. If I were these doctors, I wouldn't want to feel responsible for the health of a child whose parents were demonstrably not interested in keeping their child healthy.

New Sign in the Doctors Office... (5, Insightful)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048915)

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Vaccine: No Service. Go waste some other doctor's time. It's hard enough for doctors to make a living with Medicare cutbacks, insurance cuts, etc.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048953)

It arguably goes further than that: Depending on the nature of your practice, you might have patients who are dependent on herd immunity(immunocompromized, vaccine component allergy, etc, etc.) Would a doctor be responsible in keeping people who are voluntary infection risks around the rest of their patients?

If it were merely a matter of not taking good advice, I'd be a trifle ambivalent, certainly legal; but seems a bit tasteless. However, the infection risk makes it more like firing a medical assistant who won't wash their hands: it isn't just their health they are risking...

Re:Seems reasonable.. (4, Insightful)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049185)

I find it ironic that one of the groups that are dependent on herd immunity (Vaccine Component Allergy) is one of the ones that said doctor will kick out of his practice. My son is highly allergic to eggs, which is in many vaccines. We were informed by our doctor that if we did not allow him to inject our son with something that he is highly allergic to we would no longer be allowed to be a part of his practice.

It isn't that we don't want our son to be immunized, it is just we would rather not give him something that results in violent reactions. Especially at the young age that he is.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048973)

It's also the responsible thing for the doctors to do. If anyone refuses a vaccine, they not only put themselves at risk, but others that they may come in contact with. It's like the asshole who still comes to work with a cold and gets a bunch of other people sick in the process instead of just taking a few sick days off.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (5, Funny)

trewornan (608722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049219)

One of the few benefits of having a cold is the pleasure of passing it on to cow-orkers, don't take that away from me.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048987)

While I understand the Dr. wanting to distance himself from potential liability, the over value of vaccinations is debatable. The parents believe in their minds that they are in fact VERY interested in their child's well-being. Hence not wanting to vaccinate them.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (5, Insightful)

x1r8a3k (1170111) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049015)

Generally I would agree, but it depends on where is the line drawn? I have never gotten a flu shot. Is that enough to turn me away?

The other concerning part is only in TFA though about a child who had a preexisting condition that was exacerbated by vaccines, and was still refused by several doctors without even discussing the issue.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049035)

Exactly, other professions have done this for decades. Sometimes you need to do something drastic to get people to listen. Additionally, in any profession, the client no one wants is the one who flat out refuses to listen; questioning is fine, but refusal to listen is the end. Its like the bridge builder who refuses to follow the engineers safety margin, or the plaintiff who doesn't follow the deadlines told to him by counsel, or the parent who insists on telling teachers how to teach, or the homeowner who tells the real estate agent how to sell their house. Don't like the advice leave, I'm better off without your headaches. And if enough people tell you the same thing, maybe you will listen.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049051)

It's about the other patients. The ones who have to sit in the waiting room with your unvaccinated kid. Firing unvaccinated patients will greatly reduce the possibility that some kid will be sitting in your waiting room spreading the measles.

Re:Seems reasonable.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049059)

While I think this is fairly reasonable re: vaccines in children, in general doctors should avoid so directly pressuring people into accepting their opinions. It's more effective for them to give you the options and discuss each option with you. (Of course, they may have a blanket refusal to perform some operations, but that's a bit different.) I don't think this approach is very effective for vaccines in children, but it's important if you're, say, weighing gallstone treatment options.

...why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048801)

I can see this as nothing but a good thing for a doctor.
Sure, you don't get that $40 they pay for the shot, but in return get more expensive business when their child gets ill due to lack of said vaccine.
Unless...you're admitting that these vaccines really don't do anything?

Re:...why? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048867)

Believe it or not, most doctors actually care about keeping people healthy. They're not just in it for the money.

Besides, does any doctor really want kids with polio, smallpox, etc. running around their office -- potentially getting other patients sick?

Re:...why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049091)

Those are not the vaccines being refused.

These doctors are not doing their job. Their job is to treat the patients. And more recently, to treat the SYMPTOMS and pump more people full of useless meds that they dont need.

Re:...why? (4, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048887)

I think it's more of a Doctor desire to not work with idiots, and to instead save room in the schedule for the parents actually concerned with their kids' health.

There are free vaccine clinics EVERYWHERE due to the fact that there are WAY more than enough vaccines to go around. My family has even used them a number of times. I'm sure the doctors are not concerned with the $10-15 per shot they would get since there are easy ways to vaccinate your kids and not have to pay it anyway.

not "idiot" but "questioning" (0, Flamebait)

r00t (33219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049283)

Doctors want unquestioning obedience. They don't want their authority to be challenged.

Even if you do vaccinate your child, you'd best run from any doctor who gets rid of these patients.

BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US. Getting infected is about as likely as getting hit by lightening. It's not unreasonable to decide that the vaccine risk (yes, there is risk) isn't worthwhile. It's not unreasonable to notice the political aspects of vaccines, with all the industry lobbying, and decide that the pro-vaccine messages are inherently untrustworthy.

Re:...why? (4, Interesting)

Garridan (597129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048967)

Perhaps, they think this will help convince the family that the vaccines really are important. They're choosing to make this choice in face of losing long-term profits. That points to a deliberate ethical decision, and not grubbing after a $40 fee.

Re:...why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048969)

It's more along the lines of a doctor NOT wanting to be blamed for a more serious illness down the road that could have been easily prevented by one of these "useless vaccines." In such a litigious society, it's called "covering one's ass."

"Oh, little Jimmy got sick, even though we were religiously going to the doctor? IT'S HIS FAULT! SUE! SUE! SUE! SUE!

Re:...why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049171)

Unlike you, they have more important concerns in life than making $40. Like, you know, having a fucking brain and trying to help people. Jesus christ you people are stupid.

Re:...why? (0)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049263)

The reason doctors are professionals and not just regular people is they have a legal and ethical obligation to do what is in the best health interests of the patient, not necessarily their best financial interests. In the UK they go so far as to employ the doctors directly by the NHS and then give them more money based on things like the number of patients they can get to quit smoking.

Governments are really the only entity that can reasonably assume control over people who actually shouldn't be employed. We shouldn't ever need police, or fire services, because if people just stopped committing crimes we wouldn't need police. If people actually did all the fire safety stuff they're told to there would be a lot less need for fire services. If people actually do what doctors say, quit smoking, take these vaccines etc. we'd need a lot less of them. By your reasoning all 3 of those groups love it when people light fire to malls with people inside or when there are mass shootings. The police have a huge crime to investigate, which keeps them employed for years, fire departments collect major overtime and doctors get a huge collection of patients. The reason the government runs these things is because they are the only ones who can pay people to try and put themselves out of a job, but provide some sort of guarantee that they won't actually be put out of a job.

In the US you don't want people in your office or clinic who don't have vaccines (because they may infect you, your staff, or other patients, including those who are too young to be vaccinated yet, or those too old to survive even mitigated disease because they're vaccinated), you don't want to have to do major work on people because they didn't get vaccines. Especially with insurance as it is in the US, do you want to be liable for someone who contracted whooping cough because you let non vaccinated people into your building?

It is about time (1, Insightful)

superflit (1193931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048803)

Yes,

It is about time the doctors start to throwing the 'hippies' and mercola readers out.

If you want to go alternative DEAL with that. But you want to be a freeloader, and after complain about 'conspiracies' and demand health care.

NO.

If you can't have a scientific discussion with your doctor please do not breed

Re:It is about time (5, Informative)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048847)

FYI not all hippies are against it. I'm an old hippy, and I think people who are refusing them are goddamned idiots.

Re:It is about time (1)

superflit (1193931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048943)

FYI not all hippies are against it. I'm an old hippy, and I think people who are refusing them are goddamned idiots.

Old hippies that get older and smarter became 'Nice Uncle/Auntie' :)

Re:It is about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049197)

You guys are great.

Seriously!

Nicest people I know were hippies in their youth, then grew up.. retaining enough of that spirit to be great people, while still merging with reality.

Re:It is about time (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048917)

Being a freeloader is no excuse. There are free vaccine clinics all over the place which operate on a few $ donations, and a huge supply of free surplus vaccines that would otherwise be thrown in the trash.

Re:It is about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049041)

Freeloader in the sense of herd immunity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Vaccines do have a (minor) risk of complications. The ideal outcome for each individual is that everyone but you gets it.

Re:It is about time (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049201)

Not being argumentative here, but so does driving a car. A small percentage of drivers are in an accident every day. You just hope it's not you.

For that matter a small percentage of people randomly develop food allergies and die of anaphylactic shock. Or get food poisoning. That doesn't mean eating is a bad idea.

Re:It is about time (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048995)

The unfortunate thing is the kid doesn't and really can't have any say in it.

Once your an adult.. fine.. wanna refuse chemo because you've discovered the healing power of celery colonics, it's your health! The poor kid is at the mercy of the parents, and while the idea of the authorities dictating how a child is raised makes me very uncomfortable.. that's almost what I'd like to see.

Re:It is about time (1, Flamebait)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049097)

It isn't the hippies, it's the religious that are the problem. There may be a few "hippies" who carry such belief, but it would most likely be motivated by their religious/spiritual beliefs. I'm sure you'll take care to note diseases like polio may have already been eradicated like smallpox was except for fatwas by Islam and even more bizarrely devolved Christians.

Re:It is about time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049239)

Thank you for pointing out that not ALL hippies would support a particular opinion
while simultaneously saying "it's the religious that are the problem."

Well played, sir. Well played.

serves 'em right (4, Insightful)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048805)

If some anti-vax moron doesn't want to use the help provided by the doctor, then the doctor doesn't need to keep them cluttering up his clinic.

That's his right.

It's also the right of the anti-vax moron to die faster, so hopefully they'll be weeded out in short order and we can get back to living better with medicine.

No. Really. You anti-vax'rs are morons. Self-indulgent, blinded, murderous morons.

Re:serves 'em right (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048869)

The problem is that vaccines rely on herd immunity. One idiot can bring down a large portion of our house of cards because our immunities against these diseases simply aren't that strong.

Herd Immunity.. I don't think that means what you (0)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049139)

I am not anti-vax, but I have seen nothing that makes me believe "vaccines rely on herd immunity".

A functional vaccine induces antibody production in the vaccinated host and that's it. The herd is not involved.

Unvaccinated individuals, however, rely on being surrounded by immune individuals in order to "free load" on the herd's immunity. This is immoral if you believe in Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I don't know where this idea you have got started, but it's like a meme now... people just repeat it without evidence all the time.

Re:Herd Immunity.. I don't think that means what y (4, Informative)

b0bby (201198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049261)

I think what the parent post meant is that all vaccines have some percent of people who don't have the desired antibody response, so you want to keep the unvaccinated numbers as low as possible in order to protect them. There are also the populations of very young/very old/immune compromised who can't be vaccinated. It's these groups most at risk from the willful vaccine refusers.

Re:Herd Immunity.. I don't think that means what y (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049285)

Well, you're pretty ignorant, but true to form of the ignorant you are also incredibly confident and condescending in your ignorance. Vaccines are not 100% effective. They're upwards of 95%, but they are not a guarantee of protection. Herd immunity means that a group of individuals with near-100% immunity individually are effectively immune as those few who are actually still vulnerable have no vectors to be exposed to the disease as everyone around them IS truly immune.

There, now instead of assuming you know what herd immunity is and how vaccines work, you ACTUALLY know what herd immunity is and how vaccines rely on it.

Re:serves 'em right (5, Interesting)

raburton (1281780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049177)

> The problem is that vaccines rely on herd immunity.

Yes, this is an important point that not much has been made of in the comments so far. There are people who cannot be vaccinated or in whom the vaccine will not produce the desired immunity. So long as these people don't come in to contact with the disease they'll be fine, but if you don't want to get your child immunised and send them to school with some poor kid with a crappy immune system or on chemo or something then you might end up killing them too.

Are there schools that ban unvaccinated children from attending? I think that'd be a more effective way than kicking them out off the doctors list.

Re:serves 'em right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048885)

Unfortunately it is not the anti-vax moron, but the child of the anti-vax moron who is going to die faster, and the other children at school endangered by the continued unnecessary existence of certain infections. It is not a simple case of exercising your right to kill yourself. They are (potentially) actively harming their own children, and the children of others.

Re:serves 'em right (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048955)

No kidding. When these idiots have kids dying of whooping cough, hepatitis, or worse, they'll come to deeply regret their ignorant, short-sighted (not to mention medically disproven) position.

Re:serves 'em right (1)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049005)

Ah, right. So anti-vaxers are the new abortionists!

I can see the campaign posters now...

Re:serves 'em right (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049135)

What in the hades are you spouting about?

We're talking about medical science and disease immunity here. I'd sure like to see how you connected some imaginary dots between that and abortion...

Think of the children!... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048807)

...quite honestly, those doctors are doing it right.

Re:Think of the children!... (2)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049301)

I'm not so sure about that. The problem with this behavior is that it creates a sizable market of very, very stupid parents who have trouble finding reputable doctors willing to care for their children. Please don't make me explain the varied and sundry ways a market like that could be prayed upon; one might be able to argue that parents in that situation would deserve what they get, but their children certainly don't.

They call me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048823)

PROFIT!

Good. (0)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048829)

I don't blame them. The doctors also have to worry about other patients who come into their clinics. I suggest buying stock in child-sized coffin making companies so at least sensible people can make some cash off of these idiots and their derp.

Well they should (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048845)

There is no reason for a doctor to spend their time on a patient who doesn't listen. If they dont trust the medical field thats fine, but why then go to a professional who tells you the opposite of what you want to hear.

Too dumb to live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048849)

It sounds to me like they're taking the long view and saving themselves the time, effort, and frustration these families will cost them over the years as their beliefs and other habits catch up with them.

That makes things worse. (2, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048851)

If they're making an offer that cannot be refused without an adverse threat, such as this one, it's not voluntary. Not only has the doctor done harm by removing them from their practice, they are in a worse situation where the terminated party has fewer and lower quality options (if any).

Re:That makes things worse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048927)

Not only has the doctor done harm by removing them from their practice

How do you figure that?

they are in a worse situation where the terminated party has fewer and lower quality options (if any).

So what? If they aren't going to listen to the medical advice anyway, what difference does it make if that advice is as bad as "Drink this potion and make a wish"?

Primum non nocere (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048979)

i think that just about every medical student knows EXACTLY what that means.

If a Doctor can't do his best to serve a patient then he should not do anything for that patient (of course he should also refer the patient to some other Doctor).

Re:That makes things worse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049013)

The terminated party still has options... ...Such as letting their children get vaccinated.

If you're not going to let them be vaccinated, you're already opting for low quality care. I have no doubt they'd be allowed back into the practice upon allowing vaccination. If they realize they're running low on doctor options, maybe they'll finally realize that vaccination is a good thing and required for living in a modern world.

Either way, an unvaccinated child in a place full of potentially sick people is dangerous for everyone.

Re:That makes things worse. (5, Insightful)

WoollyMittens (1065278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049021)

On the contrary, the doctor has avoided harm to his other patients. Every new born baby or person with a weakened immune system is at risk from the preventable infections his unvaccinated patients bring into his clinic.

OK genius (5, Interesting)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049105)

A person who thinks a vaccine causes autism is liable to start blaming their doctor for whatever other ailments crop up in their kids life. Which is only no big deal if you don't have a family yourself or reputation.

Why would any doc want that?

Questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048859)

What about the doctor's responsibility for the rest of his patients who aren't cheerleading the cause of dead children?

Always torn on these cases (3, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048875)

I'm always torn on this kind of stuff.

On one hand, I think parents should be able to chose what is best for their children. Doctors and the medical community have been wrong before, and while I doubt that is the case here, I don't think parents should be forced to submit to whatever the doctor says.

On the other hand, parents are making decisions which are very likely not in their childs best interest, which isn't fair to the kid (and arguably, not fair to other kids/people/society in general in this case).

I'm not a parent or a doctor, so at least my opinion on this is largely irrelevant.

Re:Always torn on these cases (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048949)

"...I don't think parents should be forced to submit to whatever the doctor says."

They're not forced, this isn't Soviet Russia, they can go where they want.

Re:Always torn on these cases (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048989)

I'm always torn on this kind of stuff.

On one hand, I think parents should be able to chose what is best for their children.

Yes, they should be able to choose what is best, but by choosing not to vaccinate they are not choosing best, they are choosing stupid.

Re:Always torn on these cases (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049221)

A doctor's responsibility is to all of their patients. Parents who are not vaccinating their children are not just risking their children. These children may be brought into close proximity to patients that cannot be vaccinated (very young) or whose immunity has worn off (the very old). As such it puts more than themselves at risk.

ask no questions (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048881)

So if I think that 27+ vaccines in the first 18 months of life are just a tad excessive, I'm a knuckle-dragging imbecile? If I raise the point that just maybe many of these doctors are in the pockets of the companies who make all these vaccines, then I'm tin-foil-hatted nut?

It's just the most critical period of mental development in the entire life of a human...I definitely think we should introduce as many foreign agents as we can, just to make sure.

Re:ask no questions (3, Informative)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049001)

If hundreds of studies that there is no negative affect in a test group receiving 27+ vaccines vs the control group who receives none, then yes you are an imbecile. And the doctor's argument becomes moot when you can get the vaccines from a free clinic.

Re:ask no questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049165)

My 18 month old has received maybe 6 injections up to this point, so I'm not sure where you are pulling that 27+ number from.

Re:ask no questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049173)

So if I think that 27+ vaccines in the first 18 months of life are just a tad excessive, I'm a knuckle-dragging imbecile? If I raise the point that just maybe many of these doctors are in the pockets of the companies who make all these vaccines, then I'm tin-foil-hatted nut?

Yes

and again Yes.

Like not supporting users not using antivirus (4, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048889)

Its not different than a tech support company refusing data protection to customers not using anti virus

Good! (5, Interesting)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048897)

Doctors aren't always right (like anybody in any profession), but this isn't about the doctors themselves. It's about the science.

And the scientific evidence has shown time and time again that there is no link between vaccinations and autism, and that the benefits of eradicating these types of diseases far outweigh the potential mild side effects of taking them.

As such, I have no problem with the idea of doctors who practice said science turning away patients who want to be in denial about it.

Other Firings? (0)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048929)

I can see this spreading to people who don't take their pills, don't follow instructions to drop weight and/or exercise, etc.

it's understandable i think. I'm sure they are a lot of new patients who would love to get on a doctor's schedule sooner than later. And a few doctor friends of mind complain about the waste of time and energy on patients (especially those who are obese or have type 2) who just refuse to do anything to better themselves.

Managing your health requires that you actively participate in bettering yourself. I don't care if you are working with an MD, Chiro, new age healer, etc. If you won't do anything to take care of yourself why should you expect people to waste their time on you?

Re:Other Firings? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049309)

And, as we all know, doctors are always 100% honest, [theglobeandmail.com] and never, ever fuck up. [missouriin...awblog.com]

Having unquestionable faith in another human being, just because they have a certain collection of letters after their name, is just as stupid as the total lack thereof.

Re:Other Firings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049321)

This actually has (rightfully) gone the opposite way in the past decades. It used to be that doctors would shoehorn you into whatever treatment they thought was best. Now, there's a lot more emphasis on presenting options and helping the patient choose what they're most comfortable with. In fact, it's getting to the point that it can be hard to pry details about their opinion out of them.

Unintended Precedents (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048937)

I think vaccine deniers are dangerous fools, and I wish I were religious if only for the comfort of believing in a Hell waiting to accept "Dr." Wakefield.
But before we jump on this particular bandwagon, perhaps we ought to ask:

Can a doctor "fire" a patient for continuing to smoke?
For continuing to drink? How are we defining "drink?"
For continuing to overeat?
For continuing to eat lots of red meat? Fried food? Salt?
For not being on the caveman diet?

Slightly more nuanced (1)

WoollyMittens (1065278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048959)

I'm a little disturbed by the reaction above. A more nuanced reason to ban unvaccinated people would be that they endanger every other patient with a weakened immune system in the waiting room. I don't see why a medical association would recommend against a patient ban for this reason.

More business for other doctors... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048965)

There are more then a few doctors out there with struggling practices. I suspect you could very easily make yourself a pretty successful business out of simply not firing the patient.

This is effective at getting patients you don't like to go away and not be a part of your practice. I don't know if it will accomplish anything else.

I can certainly empathize with disliking a customer/client and firing them. I've fired a few clients in my time. Mostly for attitude issues. But I've never thought that firing them changed that person. I just thought they'd go on to the next person and act the same way. And eventually, someone would accept it or not care or whatever.

I also find it highly improbable that they won't find a doctor to serve them. Possibly they'll get a lower quality doctor. Anything is possible.

Anyway, the whole thing is unfortunate.

Turnabout is fair play (5, Interesting)

JoeZeppy (715167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048983)

If pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control based on their convictions, and churches can refuse to cover it due to their convictions, doctors should be allowed to refuse to treat idiots based on their convictions. Welcome to the free market, bitches.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049203)

Generally "turnabout" suggests some overlap between the sets involved in the two separate transactions. Are you suggesting that the pharmacists who decline to dispense birth control, or personnel in churches deciding they don't want to cover birth control, make up more than an incidental portion of those who refuse to vaccinate?

Firing Patients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39048985)

Doctors can fire any nonemergent patients any time they want, provided they care for the patient for next 30 days, and send the patients' next doctor the medical documentation they have. They don't need to even provide a reason.
 
The only reasons that aren't allowed are Title X type things, no racism, sexism, handicappedism, and so on... Not following the doctor's medical advice is a very acceptable reason.

Chinese medicine (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 2 years ago | (#39048997)

It has been said, that once upon a time in China, you paid the doctor when he kept you healthy, not when you fell ill.

It might make sense to expel people from your practice in that setting.

Great Idea... (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049009)

That way, when the kiddo becomes deathly ill from some disease they weren't vaccinated against, their parents will have no where to turn for help, what with being blackballed by the pediatrician.

What ever happened to "First Do No Harm?"

Re:Great Idea... (0)

dargaud (518470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049119)

It's most likely the same people who don't 'believe' in evolution anyway. They'll soon get a practical lesson into what 'natural selection' means when 8 out of their 10 offsprings don't make it to adulthood. Like in the old days when god(s) ruled.

Re:Great Idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049225)

"First do no harm" hasn't been part of medical training for a very long time. Not that I'm impugning medicos, it's just not modern or terribly realistic.

I swear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049019)

If murder was legal, I'd go on a fucking killing spree to help rid the world of anti-vaccination cretin.

Devil's Advocate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049037)

Not that I agree with these people, but how is their poor, unhealthy life choice any different from that of a smoker, or a chronic fast food eater? Both of those will lead to health complications in the future.

And if they can refuse these people, then where's the cut-off? Someone eating boxed meals at home all the time? Someone who doesn't exercise enough? Someone who doesn't drink enough glasses of water every day?

US-Europe cultural difference ? (4, Insightful)

julienr (784549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049045)

Maybe it's the difference between the US and Europe, but here in Europe, not all doctors recommend all available vaccines. I wouldn't trust my doctor if he would recommend that I (or my children) get a vaccine against flue for example.

I try to avoid drugs as much as possible because I think most non-severe illness (headache, flue, etc...) can just be cured by getting some rest and trusting your body. From my experience, the people I know that take the most drugs are the ones that are the most ill (and I'm talking non-server illness here, of course I'd take drugs if I had a cancer). I don't now if there is a causality, but I would tend to think so.

So yeah, I have kind of the same approach to vaccination : I take vaccine for sever illness, but I would never vaccine against flue before I'm 90 years old.

Now, I've lived in the US for some time and I've been shocked by the amount of drugs people take everytime they feel somewhat bad. I think there is a middleground between the "listen to your body, it will cure cancer by itself" bullshit and the "omg, I have a headache, let's eat these 3 pills". Same for vaccine.

I've often wondered... (3, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049047)

Has any study yet been done on autism rates in the unvaccinated children of antivaxers?

Note that by "antivaxer" I mean those concerned about long-discredited hoaxes that claimed vaccines might have certain side effects which we now know they do not. There are other groups who don't vaccinate for other reasons, like the Amish, and some of them do indeed show lower autism rates. But AFAIK, in all known cases of such groups, there are far too many other variables in play to simply infer that these low rates are due to lack of vaccinations: they lead lives so different from the "typical" American public that any number of factors could be contributing, and that needs to be accounted for.

go4t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049073)

our ability to buuts are exposed Due to the troubles

Child neglect (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049123)

Vaccine refusal for standard childhood vaccines could be considered child neglect.

There are parents who don't want their children to have the chicken pox vaccine and then expose them to chicken pox. [theatlantic.com] That's child abuse. The vaccine is far lower risk than actually getting the disease.

Re:Child neglect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049181)

Those kids deserve to die having likely received their parents' god-awful genes.

If they don't trust vaccines... (5, Insightful)

Galaga88 (148206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049147)

If somebody doesn't trust vaccines, why are they going to a doctor in the first place?

The sound science behind vaccinations is by and large the same sound science that doctor is going to be using when he diagnoses you and prescribes a treatment. You can't reject one without rejecting the other.

Good for them (5, Insightful)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049183)

I think people today are generally spoiled by good customer service at large retailers like Amazon or Best Buy, where the business writes off 1-2% of asshole customers who consume most of the customer support resources as the cost of doing business.

The problem is, that doesn't extend to small businesses, where one bad customer can quite literally eat up a majority of the proprietor's time and energy, and the business doesn't have the depth to just send the customer free stuff to make them happy. Had that happen with a scout troop I volunteer for a couple times, where one obnoxious parent consumed hundred of hours of volunteer time before they were told to leave.

If I were a physician, I'd certainly trade one marginal (in the economic sense) customer for the freedom from losing sleep at night about whether their child is dying from one of any number of untreatable disastrous diseases. If my patients are going to argue with me about whether vaccines are, in fact, the greatest medical development for humanity in the past two centuries, how on earth am I supposed to be able to get them to consent to any other medical science?

Good (2)

barrywalker (1855110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049189)

Now if only we could get the kids taken away from dumbass parents who won't properly care for them.

Way to ruin the vaccines. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049205)

This will cause the unvaccinated patients to congregate at a few clinics so that there will be more epidemics and eventually let the diseases evolve to be resistant to the vaccine.

This years darwin award goes to... (5, Informative)

CmdTako (2503216) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049215)

anti-vax morons "Boys who did not receive the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine during the mid 1990s are now collecting in large numbers in secondary schools and colleges and this provides a perfect breeding ground for the virus" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330082722.htm [sciencedaily.com]

The reverse happens too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049265)

I recently went shopping around for a new family doctor and one came recommended. During the initial "interview" she gave be some stuff to read on maintaining family health, etc. A lot of stuff on diet and such, but one section was about how vaccines are linked to autism and that vaccines are a big scam and H1N1 didn't kill anyone, it was all some big conspiracy. After reading this I canceled our future appointments. It's not just patients who are dumb and getting "fired", some doctors are actively pushing this "vaccines are bad" stuff and they should be fired too.

those parents are putting others at risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049293)

i totally agree that doctors should be allowed to ban patients that do not follow a dr's reasonable medical advice. this is especially true when that advice is backed up by solid medical research.

the think that bothers me more is the fact that these parents are not only putting their children at fatal risk for diseases that are totally preventable, but they also put other children, especially newborns, at risk of these diseases as well. preventing these diseases relies on "herd vaccination". these vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be some people that do not become immunized even though they received the vaccination. but because everyone else (is supposed to) get vaccinated, these people are still protected in that the disease should not be able to propagate to them. with these idiots deciding to not vaccinate, now there are more people not immunized and now the risk of transmission increases. in addition, newborns cannot be vaccinated until something like 8 months old. so these idiots are putting children too young to be immunized at risk. we live in a society, and that means people in the society need to participate in creating a safe world for all of us.

maybe we should take this a bit farther and deport those people that do not want to immunize. they are free to not immunize, but they cannot live in this society should they choose this option.

schleprock

People don't realize doctors can be sued for . . . (5, Informative)

Tanman (90298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049307)

. . . patient stupidity.

If a doctor recommends a vaccine for a child, and the parents refuse the vaccine, then the child catches the flu and dies. Guess what? The doctor is open to litigation. It is a sad state of affairs, but the end result of that lawsuit is probably either settlement out-of-court or a judgment against the doctor. After all, why didn't the doctor educate the parents how they were wrong about autism risks? Why didn't the doctor show studies to the parents so they could have made a more educated decision? The fault will not be on the parents' heads -- at the very least the doctor will have to pay an attorney to defend from the inevitable lawsuit.

Why should a doctor saddle up with 1) Patients that refuse care and 2) Legal risk. If I were a family physician and I had people putting themselves or dependents at risk against my medical advice (A.M.A.), I would "fire" them, too. In the end, we aren't talking about emergency care here. We are talking about medical maintenance, and they can find someone else.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?