If doctors stopped asking parent's permission for vaccines, would lives be saved?

I don’t have kids, but it surprises me that doctors “ask” parents. I would have assumed they tell parents it time for certain shots and some parents object. I think doctors should phrase childhood vaccines as a matter of course. The parents who are more read up or more nervous about it can discuss any ojections or concerns with the doctor.

I have more than one friend who has said when their children were young they had no idea to even question vaccine, I assume their doctors just told them it was time for a shot. They had their children all between 10–20 years ago; when there was already some paranoia about vaccines. But, these few friends I am thinking of were oblivious to some of the concerns, they never entertained there could be anything negative from a vaccine. These same friends will take any pill prescribed to them and borrow a pill from someone if they think it will make them feel better. LOL.

I only have one friend who delayed or withheld vaccines for their children. Even that friend wound up doing everything except chicken pox, and her youngest child may not have received another because she had had some seizures. I don’t remember which vaccine it was, and since she stopped having seizures maybe eventually she took the shot. Her kids caught chicken pox, if they had not had chicken pox by age 12 she would have vaccinated. Her pediatrician was very cooperative with her fears about vaccines.

Individual rights versus the public good. Prohibition didn’t work out so well.

Then there’s the whole question of maintaining the separation of church and state.

I can imagine that there are some religions out there that would sooner midwife, homeschool and hide their children rather than submit to programs contrary to their religion. They could be time-bombs if ignorance and disease.

@ibstubro What does this have to do with church and state?
And the parents can still refuse. They’re just not asked if they want to refuse.

Of course.

”: @ibstubro What does this have to do with church and state?
And the parents can still refuse. They’re just not asked if they want to refuse. ”

He missed the subtle but real variance in phraseology that made the difference here. Linguistically sound and beneficial in the long run. I can’t see too many downsides here.

I have a problem with the statement “the parents can still refuse. They’re just not asked if they want to refuse.” Parents, if given an option, must be made aware of that option. You can’t not inform them and then claim to have given them the option. It’s like how the Miranda rights work.

That being said, it does makes sense to make certain vaccines mandatory.

@PhiNotPi the children are not being arrested. They’re getting vaccines.

@Rarebear That’s not my point. My point is that “you can’t not inform them and then claim to have given them the option” is something that should hold true in all situations throughout life.

No, the children are not being arrested. They are being given voluntary medical treatment that must be approved by their parent or guardian.

I needs to be framed as a question so that it can be consistent across linguistic and cultural barriers. I doubt it would go on long without being challenged as racist.

Of course, they don’t even address how they are going to make all medical practitioners suddenly follow the new program.

If you want your children to attend a school that is registered by the Ministry of Education they have to be vaccinated in Trinidad and Tobago. And all schools must be registered, by law. We parents have few choices in this regard. But the risks of tetanus, measles, whooping cough, yellow fever and so on are not small. You hope that the statistics will favour your little Maria or your little Abu. In fairness to the health services, such episodes are rare.

@PhiNotPi I would think that the Consent to Treat form covers making the parents aware that they can refuse treatment, no?

To answer the Q – I love that article’s idea. Your phrasing makes me slightly uneasy – I think it’d be best to reframe the project in terms of creating an optimally persuasive environment rather than in terms of witholding information and choice.

@wildpotato Signing a consent form would be good enough, as long as it is made obvious what it contains. I would consider it as “asking the parents for consent,” but the discussion sounded like they weren’t asking for consent.

@PhiNotPi I see what you mean; the Q can be interpreted that way. I was taken aback, actually, before I read the article, and clicked into the thread all ready to roll up my sleeves and start a HIPAA lecture, but after I read the article I became pretty sure Rarebear meant “should we stop being proactive about bringing up doubt about whether this thing that I, the thoroughly trained physician, recommend?” and not something like “should we start sneaking up on children and sticking them with needles when their parents aren’t looking?” :)

@wildpotato exactly.

@PhiNotPi Pretty much anything a doctor does a parent can refuse. A doctor does not ask permission for everything they do to a child. They inform the parent and/or child what they are about to do. I’m going to take his temperature, I am going to prescribe this medicine, I am going to listen to his heart, etc etc. As far as vaccines I think it should be like any medicine, a parent can be given a sheet on the vaccine like the pharmacy gives us a sheet about medicine, but the doctor can present it like the vaccination is just a matter of course and most parents will just go along. Do you think that is “informed” enough?

Yes.

What the professional associations – for doctors, nurses, public health personnel – should be doing is running education programmes for parents. The pros and cons should be known to everybody. If children’s vaccinations are optional, an idea I have difficulty with, your public health service delivery clearly needs an upgrade of some kind. A pertussis epidemic? in California!!!? We have had our share back here: the last bad one was a sudden and unwelcome spike in under fives deaths (about 30 years ago). It was caused by our abominable water supply. At one time we were boiling our drinking water. Nowadays we are more sophisticated: such a happening would cause an outcry. As it is the deficiencies of our health services are hot button issues.

@bea2345 the thing is there are no “cons”. Only “pros”. And I don’t think it should be a choice. The fact that there was a pertussis epidemic in California is asinine at best and criminal at worst. As I’ve said before Andrew Wakefield should be tried for mass murder.

Yes.

The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks by a factor of 10000:1 and often even more.

Refusing a vaccination to your child is gross negligence.

Refusing a vaccination to your child is like refusing to let an ambulance car carry your child to a hospital in an emergency, because the ambulance car could get into an accident thereby injuring or killing the child.

Refusing a vaccination to your child is like staying on the beach when a hurricane approaches. Evacuation can get some people killed because they end up in a fatal traffic accident.