Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[alternageek]

As I've commented in the thread, I cant leave an official moderators warning.

 

I can ask people to remain civil with each other, though.

[Guest sibon]

As I've commented in the thread, I cant leave an official moderators warning.

 

I can ask people to remain civil with each other, though.

 

I think that most people are being. It is an emotive topic and passions run high.

 

That all makes for a good debate. Let it happen:)

[Obelix]

I'm being perfectly civil. The alternative was to report him for falsely amending my quotes.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 23:39 ----------

 

That would be tantamount to forcing them to have vaccinations in all but word, don't you think?

 

There are provisions in the UK public health laws to do that. Until recently there were a number of people who had spent most of their adult lives locked up for the "crime" of being uncurable asymptotic typhoid carriers...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7528045.stm

 

I suspect you could easliy use the same legislation to compel vaccination. The carrot approach is much better IMO.

[loraward]

I think what the last three pages aptly demonstrate is that it is wrong of a government to force vaccinations upon a population with mixed opinions, I assume that is a safe conclusion to the discussion.

 

Government as a responsibility to protect the population even when that means creating laws that some people disagree with. Some people need protecting from their own stupidity and the stupidity of others.

[tzijlstra]

Government as a responsibility to protect the population even when that means creating laws that some people disagree with. Some people need protecting from their own stupidity and the stupidity of others.

 

The government does not have that responsibility at all, it has a responsibility to represent the people, which is entirely different to forcing law upon them that removes moral decisions.

[onewheeldave]

 

He starts begins by confessing that his personal interest in the issue stems from becoming irritated that his wife's gastroenterologist didn't give him, as a medical doctor, due deference. So to sum it up he seems more determined to get one up on the the arrogant gastroenterologist than produce a piece of research that'll change practice.

Here's the actual text of the article, so people can decide for themselves who was being arrogant.

 

after a 15-minute examination by the doctor I was asked to join Mary in his office. The doctor began by agreeing with my diagnosis and suggested a few extra stool and blood tests to rule out other possibilities. After some small talk I agreed, thanked him, and began to leave.

 

Unfortunately, the doctor had other ideas about the purpose of our visit and began by saying, “You know that colorectal cancer is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide, with more than 1 million cases and 600,000 deaths every year.” After a pregnant pause, he continued. “Mrs. McDougall, you are in your fifties, and you need a colonoscopy to prevent colon cancer.” Mary looked puzzled. She had come for help with her abdominal pains and was now being asked to have a procedure for detecting the remote possibility that she might have colon polyps or cancer. She looked to me for a response.

 

I said, “I understand your concern, but no thanks.” And we began to leave again. In an authoritative tone he insisted, “It would be highly irresponsible not to do this test.” I told him I knew as much about the risk of colon cancer and the supposed benefits of colonoscopy as he did, and the answer is “No.” The doctor was obviously threatened and loudly declared, “You are risking her life. I am the expert here. I have been doing these procedures for more than 10 years. They are perfectly safe. If you refuse my recommendations I will have to write a note in her records, just in case she dies of colon cancer and you come back and try to sue me.”

 

As I walked out of his office I said, “I have seen perfectly healthy people killed after having their colon perforated with your six-foot long tubes passed under sedation.” What bothered me most about this exchange was that I am a doctor, yet he was talking to me in a condescending manner, as if I were a hopelessly ignorant child. I imagine that it must be pure hell for the average patients suffering through his aggressive sales pitch. As I left I said to the doctor, “You should be ashamed of your behavior and you should probably be reported to your local medical board for showing such disrespect for a patient.”*

 

*Patients have the rights to receive considerate, safe, respectful care, and to be made comfortable; to receive care in a safe setting, free from verbal or physical abuse or harassment; to receive information about their health status, course of treatment, prospects for recovery and outcomes of care; to make decisions regarding medical care, and receive as much information about any proposed treatment or procedure; etc. (Paraphrased from the St. Helena Hospital Patients’ Bill of Rights.)

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 07:56 ----------

 

 

He also mentions the risk of perforation, without mentioning it's which is exceedingly rare

 

It's 1 in 200.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 08:04 ----------

 

 

 

It's worth remembering that the article represents Dr Mcdougall's views and his views alone.

 

As does any article (represent the views of it's writer). It's also worth remembering that Dr McDougal is a respected medical doctor of long standing who knows what he's talking about, and, I for one, am very gratefull that there are doctors like him, who will call bull**** when they see it and stand up against a medical system which is swayed more by pharmaceutical company cash and influence, than actual evidence.

 

 

Anyway the important thing here is to note, I am not asking you to take my word over his, I'm asking you to take the medical consensus of a test that saves countless lives, costs countless lives when it isn't carried out.

 

 

 

It's an out-of-date procedure than causes more harm than good, which persists soley due to the profit it produces.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 08:12 ----------

 

So you expect me to believe that it's a complete coincidence that you was talking about "approved research" and you introduced the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy as an example. And then by magic a couple of posts later you produce an article about the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy, and they are not related?

 

Also I've read plenty of articles that are research papers, so I don't where you're going with that one.

 

I'd like to expect that I can talk about 2 separate things in one thread without people drawing connections that don't exist, yes.

 

I'd also like to be taken as an honest person, which clearly you do not think I am.

 

Like I said before, I'm autistic NOT STUPID. I could not mistake an article, for a research paper, unless, I was stupid.

 

I'm going to leave it at that, cos I'm here to debate compulsory immunisation, not waste my valuable time dealing with people accusing me of being dishonest and/or stupid.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 08:13 ----------

 

Oh look there's the abuse. Why do you feel it necessary when losing the argument?

 

 

 

 

Smallpox

 

Rinderpest

 

 

 

 

 

The blue eyed fairy beetle could be responsible. Have you any evidence?

 

 

 

And? It's a typical froth at the mouth diatriabe completely devoid of evidence at all.

That's usefull

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 08:17 ----------

 

Second, they are not 'forcing' vaccinations on anyone, but making life financially more difficult for those parents who fail to have their children immunised - there's an important difference. It is arguably an incentive scheme.

 

It's directed at the poor/underclass who generally live hand-to-mouth. Stripping their cash further, given they have children, is 'forcing'.

 

I would dearly love to see the 'argument' that it's an incentive scheme

 

If the govt encouraged the poor to vaccinate their children by giving them a cash incentve, that would be an incentive scheme.

[loraward]

The government does not have that responsibility at all, it has a responsibility to represent the people, which is entirely different to forcing law upon them that removes moral decisions.

 

I think it would be safe to drive down the motorway at 150MPH, I'm confident that I can do it on a daily basis without killing anyone, should it be allowed? Or should the safety of other road users take priority over my right to drive fast?

[SWFCbrian]

I think it would be safe to drive down the motorway at 150MPH

 

it is for good drivers on the streight bits. not sure id want the wife driving that fast. no what i mean mate??

[loraward]

 

If the govt encouraged the poor to vaccinate their children by giving them a cash incentve, that would be an incentive scheme.

 

That's what they are doing.

 

The Australian government has announced that it will only give welfare payments to parents that vaccinate their children, that looks like a cash incentive to me.

[tzijlstra]

I think it would be safe to drive down the motorway at 150MPH, I'm confident that I can do it on a daily basis without killing anyone, should it be allowed? Or should the safety of other road users take priority over my right to drive fast?

 

That is not a moral choice, is it?