We were discussing the Disneryland measles outbreak at work, and I was appalled to find some of my co-workers refuse to vaccinate their kids. They (grudgingly) receive the vaccines they need to remain employed, but doubt their safety/necessity for their kids.
I must say, I am absolutley stunned. How can one be a nurse and deny science?
As a nurse, you should darn well know what the scientific method entails and what phrases such as "evidence based" and "peer reviewed" mean.
I have to say, I have lost most of my respect for the nurses and mistrust their judgement; after all, if they deny science, on what premise are they basing their practices?
But the world isn't full of nurses...we can't expect everyone to act as if it is. If my neighbor doesn't want to vaccinate...that is their choice. It doesn't mean they need to bend to the nursing code of ethics. I, in my field of work, may need to follow the code but that's mean the world needs to.
I'm willing to accept and embrace everyone regardless of their vaccination beliefs because first...this is a free country. I embrace our freedoms first. When I am working...I would be doing harm if I refused to care for those not vaccinating.
(my bold)
I like my freedom too, but I assume that you agree with me that a society in order to function, has to limit the freedom of individuals to a certain extent?
I have a bit of a lead foot.. But most people I'm sure, are of the opinion that I shouldn't be free to drive past their children's school doing 120 mph. Should I as a car owner and driver have to make sure that the brakes on my car are in working order? Or is that also something I'm free to decide, no matter the danger I might pose to others if they don't work? Perhaps people should just stay off the streets so that I can exercise my personal freedom?
If I suddenly have a desire for a breath of fresh air mid-flight at 30.000 ft, I'm not allowed to open the aircraft's emergency exit.. My freedom to choose in this scenario is definitely curtailed.
My neighbor is extremely annoying and plays loud music day and night. It definitely interferes with my sleep. Should I be allowed to beat him up or kill him so that I can sleep? Most people agree that I don't have and shouldn't have that freedom.
100% individual freedom would cause a society to self-destruct. What most of us consider unacceptable, are actually acceptable to some. I'm glad that there are laws, norms and ethical standards that protects people.
I realize that the above examples are extreme but the principle is the same. How much freedom should each individual have, when the consequences of their actions actually causes another person harm?
Vaccines are safe and proven through research/data to save lives. Diseases that used to kill or injure many children for life in the past, are today much less common.
I do feel an ethical obligation to protect those in society who are vulnerable, and to me that duty doesn't only apply when I'm "on the clock". The society that I want to live in isn't I I I I I, ME ME ME ! it's we.
I think that it's really sad when parents won't have their children vaccinated due to fear and/or ignorance.
Yes -- as already noted, I, too, have to produce my dog's vaccination records to bring him to the grooming salon or dog daycare. I'd love to see Disney and other businesses introduce a policy that parents have to show their kids' vaccination records to bring their kids in ... :)
I have to agree with you on this. A nurse I worked with seriously stated the vaccines weren't necessary because "nobody gets the measles or mumps anymore." Umm...maybe because we were all vaccinated?
Been to Disneyland lately? We just had our fifth case of measles diagnosed here in Arizona in connection with that outbreak.
I said to my husband that it's sad, but this is what has to happen. People will have to pay the price before they wake up. Kids will have to die and become maimed or sterile again from diseases "no one gets and aren't that serious" before these idiots wake up and realize what a blessing it is to live in an age when we can easily prevent them.
Who should stay home? The kid who cannot be vaccinated or the kids whose parents decided not to vaccinate?
When someone chooses not to vaccinate their child, they are making a decision to create a dangerous environment for those medically incapable of vaccination.
How arrogant and selfish do you have to be: "I choose to create a more dangerous environment and I expect others to accept that danger or get the hell out of my way!"
I think there's evidence that an onslaught of too many vaccines at once can negatively affect the immune system
You think there's evidence? Have you read it? Where is this evidence?
Specializes in Pediatrics, High-Risk L&D, Antepartum, L.
(my bold)
I like my freedom too, but I assume that you agree with me that a society in order to function, has to limit the freedom of individuals to a certain extent?
I have a bit of a lead foot.. But most people I'm sure, are of the opinion that I shouldn't be free to drive past their children's school doing 120 mph. Should I as a car owner and driver have to make sure that the brakes on my car are in working order? Or is that also something I'm free to decide, no matter the danger I might pose to others if they don't work? Perhaps people should just stay off the streets so that I can exercise my personal freedom?
If I suddenly have a desire for a breath of fresh air mid-flight at 30.000 ft, I'm not allowed to open the aircraft's emergency exit.. My freedom to choose in this scenario is definitely curtailed.
My neighbor is extremely annoying and plays loud music day and night. It definitely interferes with my sleep. Should I be allowed to beat him up or kill him so that I can sleep? Most people agree that I don't have and shouldn't have that freedom.
100% individual freedom would cause a society to self-destruct. What most of us consider unacceptable, are actually acceptable to some. I'm glad that there are laws, norms and ethical standards that protects people.
I realize that the above examples are extreme but the principle is the same. How much freedom should each individual have, when the consequences of their actions actually causes another person harm?
Vaccines are safe and proven through research/data to save lives. Diseases that used to kill or injure many children for life in the past, are today much less common.
I do feel an ethical obligation to protect those in society who are vulnerable, and to me that duty doesn't only apply when I'm "on the clock". The society that I want to live in isn't I I I I I, ME ME ME ! it's we.
I think that it's really sad when parents won't have their children vaccinated due to fear and/or ignorance.
Vaccines are very much more of an individual freedom. We are asking people to inject something into their body. We aren't asking them to just slow down. Big difference.
Specializes in Pediatrics, High-Risk L&D, Antepartum, L.
Who should stay home? The kid who cannot be vaccinated or the kids whose parents decided not to vaccinate?
When someone chooses not to vaccinate their child, they are making a decision to create a dangerous environment for those medically incapable of vaccination.
How arrogant and selfish do you have to be: "I choose to create a more dangerous environment and I expect others to accept that danger or get the hell out of my way!"
You think there's evidence? Have you read it? Where is this evidence?
Devil's advocate...why should the anti-bad parent keep their kid home? Why does the right of the other child trump the rights of the anti-vaxer's child? Maybe the child with the compromised immune system should be kept home. When do we decide who has more rights?
That is a very good question IrishIzRN,
To answer it we have to remember that vaccines are not 100%, not everyone who get's vaccinated develops sufficient immunity to the disease, but if a sufficient amount of the population is vaccinated, then that causes a "herd immunity" or a decrease in the ability of the disease to be transmitted from one person to the next. Herd immunity is different for each individual disease, dependent on the diseases characteristics.
Thus, you cannot say everyone who isn't vaccinated has to stay home, instead you would have to say everyone who isn't protected has to stay home. And since we don't test each vaccine recipient and then give them a card saying you are vaccinated against all diseases, your allowed to go out in public until xx date, that just won't work from a logistical perspective. You can sortof do the opposite in certain public venues, i.e. the public schools do know who has been vaccinated, so it is possible to increase the herd immunity in their population by eliminating the un-vaccinated children when an outbreak is in progress. I'm not sure I believe that is a good solution, but it is one that can be done logistically.
To me the bigger issue is that this is a public safety program, not an individual safety program. As someone who has fairly strong libertarian views, I tend to prefer personal rights over public rights, but in this case, and in other public health issues, I believe the public's rights have to trump the individuals. The reason I believe this is a public health issue is that the design or concept of vaccines as protection is that they protect the entire population, not just the individual recipient. The public safety can only be accomplished if enough people participate, so that those who can't participate (immuno compromised, etc.) and those for whom the vaccine does not provide protection are also protected by those who did participate.
However, with the number of exemptions that are begin given, and because often those who ask for exemptions are clustering, there are pockets of the population where the disease is able to spread almost as well as it did before vaccination. This is worrisome for several reasons:
1) Those who get it are now able to spread it from one pocket to another, and expose others who are unable to be protected on their own.
2) It allows the virus or bacteria greater chance to mutate and then it will not be as easy to stop.
For these reasons, I think the individual rights are outweighed by the public's health rights, just as in the same way we make rules limiting individual rights to protect the public in other situations. Some non health related examples of these are defense, and infrastructure where we all pay into a general pool (taxes) and elect someone to make decisions for us on how to allocate that money and resources to serve those interests. We generally disagree on the best way to handle that, but as a collective we agree that we have to have some form of defense and some form of infrastructure for our society to continue. A health related example of this is sewage. Regardless of your individual rights even as a property owner, it is illegal for you to dump raw sewage onto your land. It's not that we care so much about you, it's that we don't want you to contaminate your neighbors, and their neighbors, etc. So as a collective, we have decided that your individual rights to have stinky raw sewage on your land is not as important as the rights of the rest of us to live healthy lives (and hopefully less odorous lives too).
We don't really have arguments over the sewage discussion, because it is framed as a public health discussion, not an individual rights discussion. I think one of the things that has to change for immunizations to no longer be a fight, is we need to re-frame the discussion. Instead of discussing if we are violating an individual's freedom of choice here, we need to discuss if the individual should have the right to contaminate the public's rights to a healthy environment. I think this change in perspective will come, but it will take a major threat again before it will change. Today, because of the successes of the immunization program in the past, we don't feel threatened enough to reframe the discussion.
Imagine if you will if ebola had taken hold in this country, and the only option to stop the spread of it had been vaccines, then the discussion would not be are we or aren't we going to get vaccines, it would be who gets to get them first! I don't know when that threat will happen, but I do believe it will happen at some point, and at that point the conversation will shift from a individual rights discussion to a public health discussion and hopefully we will get rid of the entire concept of exemptions for personal beliefs.
Seriously, 82+% of the measles cases from the latest Disneyland outbreak, aimed to top 100 cases, are in non-vaccinated children, the vast majority of them VOLUNTARILY NOT VACCINATED.
So, the parents of the unvaccinated 6 year old who were responsible for infecting the unable to be vaccinated 6-mo old can say "well, you shouldn't have been allowed out of your house with that infant because I can do what ever I feel like FREEDOM YEA!"
Your FREEDOM to punch me ends before the tip of my nose.
Otherwise you get what we have now: an INTERNATIONAL+MULTI-STATE MEASLES OUTBREAK
FREEDOM!
When a Christian Scientists refuses an appendectomy for their child, they only kill their own child.
When a new age 1%er mom who reads naturalnews.com like the gospel or a fringe Christian/Muslim fundamentalist decides not to vaccinate their child, they are endangering EVERYONE's CHILD.
And that is how Mexico caught Measles from the USA.
Whoever thought we'd be seeing that in the 21st century.
Vaccines are very much more of an individual freedom. We are asking people to inject something into their body. We aren't asking them to just slow down. Big difference.
The only difference between the two is that you seem to be opposed to injecting a vaccine while you don't seem to be opposed to driving safely.
I on the other hand have no problems injecting a safe vaccine that will save lives (and also protect myself), but find it a hardship and a huge infringement on my personal freedom, to be forced to drive so darn slow just because someone decided to build a school by the road...
Don't you see, both actions (or inactions) have the potential to harm others.
We all place different values on different things. Getting vaccinated isn't inherently a "bigger sacrifice" in order to promote the greater good for society as a whole, than slowing down while driving is. It depends on who you ask.
But that is your opinion...not theirs.
I don't think that the statement that you create a more dangerous environment for others if you don't vaccinate your children is an opinion, it is a fact. Just as I would be creating a dangerous environment for others if I actually chose to give in to my speed demon urges, instead of making the wise and responsible choice to respect the speed limit.
I know that this is a bash anti-vaccine thread, and I hope I don't get thrashed here. I'm personally not firmly in the anti-vaccine camp myself, although I do question the wisdom of the current vaccine schedule pushed by the American medical system. I think there's evidence that an onslaught of too many vaccines at once can negatively affect the immune system, and I chose to introduce vaccines to my children on a different schedule. And, I strongly believe it's wise to be skeptical of the medical system in the United States, where big business gets government to push its products. I do distrust big pharmaceutical interests and other corporate interests, and I distrust the government.
But, above all, I am a civil libertarian and strongly believe that this is a central ideal of these United States of America. Individual liberties have traditionally trumped 'the common good' in this great nation. Why, vaccination of children is optional in the United Kingdom, a nation with a much more comprehensive medical system and less emphasis on individual rights.
I think a lot of the anti-vaccination crowd are also folks who generally distrust the government, and corporate medicine. Having crowds of people with virtual torches, ready to force them to acquiesce, only increases their paranoia.
This hysteria over the measles is overblown, in my opinion. I actually remember having the measles when I was 4 years old. It's not a death sentence by any means. Losing total respect for people with other healthcare philosophies? Well, that goes against my ethics as a nurse that preaches tolerance.
Yes, the Polio vaccine has saved millions from getting that crippling disease. Vaccines have done a lot for the public health. But, I still believe in individual rights and the rights of parents to make healthcare choices for their children. That means that they also should have the right to bottle feed, feed them junk food, and not have bed times for them, all things I disapprove of.
You stated this eloquently and very articulately and I have to completely agree. Judging other people based on their INFORMED decisions is counter productive to being a fully effective nurse in my very humble opinion. We can't judge people based on cultural decisions (ethnocentrism) and to say that they are "fearful, and uneducated" based on their anti-vaccine beliefs? Not buying it. I would rather follow a person who questions "why" than have Uncle Sam blindly lead me. I am not anti vaccine, but I will say with every vaccine I do get, (I am a runner) my body seems to get physically slower year after year. I will not dispute that they have saved lives and are a good thing. BUT....ever hear of population control? The soldiers that are forced to take malaria pills? Any healthcare professional that shuns people for thinking differently or questioning why, scares me more than the questioning person.
Driving 25 in the school zone is totally like a vaccine. Here is how.
If you drive 25 in the school zone, there a tiny increase in the chance that you will experience some bad kid egging your car coupled with hugely decreased chance of smashing yourself or some child in a wreck, especially some blind or deaf kid. And so we justify imposing the minuscule increase in risk to you in exchange for a huge boon in safety for the public and yourself.
Mandated vaccines are evaluated for risk-benefit in the same way.
But some people think it is their God given right to smash little children at 120mph in order to avoid a tiny chance of a little egg on their face...
In one instance they get a vehicular homicide charge when the child dies. In the other, they should FREEDOM when the child dies.
macawake, MSN
2,141 Posts
(my bold)
I like my freedom too, but I assume that you agree with me that a society in order to function, has to limit the freedom of individuals to a certain extent?
I have a bit of a lead foot.. But most people I'm sure, are of the opinion that I shouldn't be free to drive past their children's school doing 120 mph. Should I as a car owner and driver have to make sure that the brakes on my car are in working order? Or is that also something I'm free to decide, no matter the danger I might pose to others if they don't work? Perhaps people should just stay off the streets so that I can exercise my personal freedom?
If I suddenly have a desire for a breath of fresh air mid-flight at 30.000 ft, I'm not allowed to open the aircraft's emergency exit.. My freedom to choose in this scenario is definitely curtailed.
My neighbor is extremely annoying and plays loud music day and night. It definitely interferes with my sleep. Should I be allowed to beat him up or kill him so that I can sleep? Most people agree that I don't have and shouldn't have that freedom.
100% individual freedom would cause a society to self-destruct. What most of us consider unacceptable, are actually acceptable to some. I'm glad that there are laws, norms and ethical standards that protects people.
I realize that the above examples are extreme but the principle is the same. How much freedom should each individual have, when the consequences of their actions actually causes another person harm?
Vaccines are safe and proven through research/data to save lives. Diseases that used to kill or injure many children for life in the past, are today much less common.
I do feel an ethical obligation to protect those in society who are vulnerable, and to me that duty doesn't only apply when I'm "on the clock". The society that I want to live in isn't I I I I I, ME ME ME ! it's we.
I think that it's really sad when parents won't have their children vaccinated due to fear and/or ignorance.