<p>I didn’t think you were defending the nurses. Just clarifying. ;)</p>
<p>I can imagine that these nurses just feel strongly for the well being of the children. I know that I have had similar thoughts at times in my career. But you have to censor those thoughts at work and just do the job that you are hired to do. </p>
<p>I had to take care of a murderer once. There was no doubt about it, he admitted it. I had to just put my feelings about it on the back burner and give the same care I would give for anyone else. It was interesting in some ways to see if I could compartmentalize my feelings like that. The worst thing was that this was a gang murder and the other gang had threatened to retaliate. There were cops in our unit and my DH was a little freaked out that I might get caught in some kind of crossfire. Didn’t happen, but he was not a happy camper.</p>
<p>One of the most difficult cases I ever had when I used to work with hospice was a 34-year old young man with ALS; he was a ‘previous’ gang member/leader, who admitted to ordering shootings and murders, and had himself been shot several times. He supposedly ‘left’ the gang when he ‘found’ religion, but from what I’ve always read, gang members never really leave a gang. In fact, this gang was still having occasional fundraisers for him! Whenever I went to his house, in all honesty, I never sat by the window in fear of retribution that might miss him and come my way! I think those were the only visits I was really scared at in all my years with hospice. But even gang members/criminals deserve dignity at the end of life.</p>
<p>I have colleagues who refuse to take families into their practices if they don’t vaccinate. And when I was a younger pediatrician I considered doing this, too, because I felt strongly about vaccination. But I learned that it’s more important to form a good relationship with patients and families, and build rapport. I’ve been able to compromise often and the result is kids who are vaccinated, and parents who feel listened to. Calling patients “losers”, in any context, is wrong. It just doesn’t do any good on either side, and once you’ve alienated patients, you’ll never get another chance to do something good for them.</p>
<p>It does no justice to the ideal of having a herd community when the pro-vacciners are going around scorning those who are against vaccines. It is counterproductive. If one really does want to convince another who is against vaccines, they should approach the situation proactively, such as jaylynn has demonstrated. It’s the equivalent of burning a bridge that is necessary to cross.</p>
<p>Not that I’m excusing what this nurse did (I’m not and I think it’s inappropriate), but you’d be amazed at how well public shaming works, niquii. [Not that I’m advocating it necessarily…]</p>
<p>How is a note left in the room considered public shaming?</p>
<p>Shaming a group of people through an article/publics announcement while explaining the benefits of being vaccinated is more productive (and spares the defamation of character on the one speaking out) than leaving a snarky note in an office.</p>
<p>I remember when our pediatrician made comments about my kid’s kindergarten start date. It was her opinion, not medical opinion, and I opted to find another doctor. It was rude. I was a young mom and had done my research, and she made me feel dumb. </p>
<p>I tried to separate her comments from her being my kid’s do tor, but felt like she didn’t respect my opinions after that. Fortunately, other docs in practice that we loved.</p>
<p>Someone way up thread had a question about when certain vaccinations are counter-indicated (due to illness). For questions about any specific vaccine, I found this website extraordinarily helpful - it has the CDC info sheets on each vaccine:</p>
<p>And I know I’m coming late to the party, but with regard to MiamiDAP’s comments above about parents who “strongly believe” that vaccination is dangerous . . . well, there are also people who “strongly believe” that stepping on a crack will “break their mother’s back.” Do we need to respect that belief also?</p>
<p>I see no reason to “respect them as a person” if you think they are a dangerous idiot. You can respect their right to be–in your opinion–an idiot, which is different. There are people for whom one may have no respect at all, or very little. There are many more where one may simply not respect some aspect of them.</p>
<p>That extends to other maybe fringe parenting decisions - raising a vegan child, co-sleeping, swaddling, extended nursing. There are things that one parent may think is cool and a doctor may think is extreme and possibly dangerous.</p>
<p>Does it help a doctor-patient relationship if a doctor thinks or says a parent is an idiot? If they do not respect a parenting decision, it is awfully hard to extend that to conversations between a parent and a doctor. Trust is essential n that relationship. </p>
<p>I remember a friend of mine put her 10 month old on 1% cow’s milk. I was horrified. Her doctor said it was fine. </p>
<p>Before my pediatrician lectured me on my decision to send my kid to school when I did, we had a previous doc who treated my asthmatic chikd not with a nebulizer, but albuterol syrup. This was a disaster and my kid suffered - standard of care for severe breathing episodes was not the syrup. I found that out at ER, when doc asked me why we weren’t using a nebulizer since it was so much safer and better for child. </p>
<p>Doctors make mistakes. So do parents. I never called that doctor an idiot, even though, by all rights putting my kid through a substandard treatment for nearly a year was not appropriate and he should have known better. It could have even put my son at greater risk for death, since his episodes were fairly bad. I did question him later, though. He said he thought it was easier on patient to medicate with syrup. </p>
<p>With immunizations, many of us are militant in our ideas that contagious illnesses that spread easily to population should be vaccinated. It might be surprising that people are fearful or possibly ignorant of their benefits.</p>
<p>I mistyped my post. It should be read as: You don’t have to respect their belief, but should respect them as a person, and not force them to step on cracks. It’d be disrespectful to do so.</p>
<p>Consolation, if you don’t respect another human being as a human being who has the same rights as you have then that is on you. Not the person. Everyone should respect everyone as a human being. You may not respect them as an authority figure or a parent, but you should respect them at a minimum. Forcing a person to step on cracks when they whole heartedly believe it is at the root of their mother’s back problems, is disrespectful. Why? Because you are knowingly going against their beliefs, putting your own above theirs, and subjecting them to what they don’t want to do.</p>
<p>
I agree with you Landshark. </p>
<p>It does not help a doctor-patient relationship if the doctors thinks the parent is an idiot. Additionally, it does not help the doctor’s goal to sway the parent’s decision to what the doctor desires for the child. Insulting the parent does nothing more than wounds a relationships and, perhaps, pushes the parent more into their ways. This is why rather than insulting non vacciners and hoping they get sick, those that speak against non vacciners should demonstrate the effects of the non vacciners actions and educate them.</p>
<p>Not a comparable situation. Nor is raising your child vegan or most other things listed here. These things only affect yourself/your child. Not immunizing is not just about YOU and YOUR CHILD, it’s about every single person you come into contact with.</p>
<p>Yes, there’s a difference between the two types of belief . . . but my point was that MiamiDAP seemed to be suggesting that the strength of a belief somehow gives it merit. And one can cite countless examples that show this just isn’t so.</p>
<p>The parents in the news story above (concerning that unfortunate note from the nurse) defended their anti-vaccination stance by stating that they had done extensive “research” on the ingredients in the vaccines and ultimately concluded the vaccines were unsafe. The problem is that if their sources were limited to “junk science,” it doesn’t matter how much research they did or how “strongly” they hold their belief - their ultimate conclusion would still be flawed.</p>
<p>It seems the only appropriate response is education. I, for one, did not know that the physician who claimed to have found a link between autism and vaccination had since been stripped of his credentials. Maybe that was widely publicized and I just missed it . . . or perhaps it hasn’t been publicized enough?</p>
<p>Further, his results seemed credible because they relied on an apparent correlation between increased incidence of autism and increased vaccination . . . have there been studies refuting the existence of such a correlation? And have those studies received the publicity they deserve?</p>
<p>I’m just saying that once you start a ball rolling, it takes a lot to stop it.</p>
<p>dodger, yes- there have been studies done and they have received the publicity they deserved. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t lock on to it because it’s not a sensationalistic story. We tend to hear the fringe elements more than the majority. The overwhelming majority of people understand that you need to vaccinate so there’s not a huge push to get people to vaccinate. The only ones making waves are the loonies like Jenny McCarthy. And those on the fringe tend to scream the loudest so we think there is more of them than there are.</p>
<p>Dodgersmom, the findings were pretty well publicized, as were the many studies that did NOT show correlation with autism/MMR (NONE did), and the many that failed to replicate Andrew Wakefield’s work. I think that the problem is/was that the people seeing that news were either in the field (doctors, teachers, scientists, psychologists, etc) and those who had a personal stake (parents of autistic kids, parents of young kids, etc). Like any news, the audience most interested saw it. The news of Lancet (the preeminent British medical journal which published Wakefield’s “study”)'s retraction (the first in its history) was big news, and then the news that his co-researchers distanced themselves and then that he was paid by parent groups—those following the story were well aware of it. Then it quieted down (it’s been fifteen years, after all), but I agree that it should periodically be brought up again to remind people about bad science, especially with the re-emergence of diseased we ALMOST got rid of. </p>
<p>It’s a new era of whooping cough, measles, diptheria (reported in Russia), mumps, and the rest… Get ready.</p>
<p>In regard to MiamiDap’s assertion that many parent’s are “forcing” vaccines on their children, the same can be said of the parents who refuse vaccine’s for their child. In either case, the child has no choice in the matter of whether or not they receive the vaccine or not. Research would indicate that the parents who refuse to immunize are making a riskier choice than those that choose to.</p>
<p>Of course there’s always the most publicity when a story breaks (page one when John Doe is arrested, and page 23 when he’s released for lack of evidence). And, in all likelihood, those studies Jaylynn referenced aren’t making it into the alternative health publications where they’d reach the target audience they need to reach.</p>