Doctor Issues

[Sanche99]

>My very first post to this thread asked an innocent question
>as to WHY you didn't want your SD to get the vaccine, because
>I have NOT heard one adverse comment about the vaccine.  But
>then I don't have girls and am too old for it anyway.  So my
>question was one of interest, NOT to be rude.  

And that's what I assumed was going on, and that is why I politely answered your question.  And then you took it and ran, becoming very rude and oppositional, when my point was NOT to debate the vaccine, but to ask for some help with a legal issue.  So, thanks a lot.  I wonder if the people who created this website realize that their forums are being used to bash NCPs asking questions, instead of helping them?  

>I strongly suggest you get out of conflict completely and
>leave it up to the biological parents.

*Rolling eyes*  Yeah, cause if they are related BIOLOGICALLY, they are the best ones to make decisions, right?  SD's mother is emotionally and physically abusive to her (yes, it's documented), and thought it was ok to move her then-12-year-old daughter in with an ephebophile.  

And FTR:  DH IS the one making the decision.  HE is the one who said, "I don't want her to get the vaccine, what can I do to make sure she doesn't get it?"  Excuse me for daring to support my husband!

[Sanche99]

>Then why aren't you/your office informing the parents as well?

The parents are told.  But then, it doesn't sound as great if you just say, "It's a vaccine that may help prevent a few strains of a virus that occasionally lead to cervical cancer, which can be deadly if you refuse to get yearly pap tests."  And the doctors want to push the vaccine, so they're going to let them think what they want.

>No, it has NEVER been touted as a
>vaccine for cancer, ONLY as a vaccine against certain strains
>of HPV.  

Yeah...I guess that's what "Gardasil The only cervical cancer vaccine" means, huh?  FYI, that is EXACTLY what the Gardasil website says.  Yes, it give more information down below, but what's in big letters there, and in the commercials?  The information that most people see?  "Gardasil The only cervical cancer vaccine."  To make the claim AT ALL that it is a vaccine against cervical cancer is sickening.

[Sanche99]

>But the best available evidence at this time
>indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks. Erring in
>either direction to support a bias is not correct.

Actually, the evidence at this time says that getting the shot may help 500 people or less a year.  Getting the shot may harm 3200 people or more a year.  Gee...I'll take my chances with the LOWER number of people harmed, thanks.

[Sanche99]

>Actually many states had mandated it and others were
>considering it. However due to the risk factors and reactions
>so far to the vaccine they have rescinded the mandate and it
>is not longer mandatory in those states.

Interestingly, the state that was quickest to try and mandate this vaccine had it signed by executive order, instead of going through the regular channels, by a governor whose campaign was funded by Merck.  Sounds fishy to me.

[Sanche99]

>Just because a woman gets annual pap smears doesn't mean she
>won't get cancer.  

Never said it would.  However, cervical cancer is EXTREMELY curable in the early stages.  It has been estimated that 90% of the women who die of cervical cancer could have survived, if they had gotten annual pap tests.  

>Just more proof that you are way too emotionally involved to
>be objective about this.  Like I said before, stay out of this
>issue and let the BF and BM handle it.  You have no say-so in
>the decision anyway.

And like I said, the father (my husband) is the one who said to me, "I don't want my daughter to get this vaccine, what do I have to do?"  Why do you have such a problem with me supporting him?  

You bet I'm "emotionally involved" in my SDs life.  I've known her since she was 6 1/2, and I've been more of a mother to her than her own biological mother.  If you think I'm going to stop helping her because YOU say I shouldn't, too bad.
 

[wysiwyg]

>You bet I'm "emotionally involved" in my SDs life. I've known her since she was 6 1/2, and I've been more of a mother to her than her own biological mother. If you think I'm going to stop helping her because YOU say I shouldn't, too bad."

As all of us second moms and dads wish to be involved in our step childs life, the fact is that you are not a party of the courts order therefore you have no say in anything regarding the kids unless it specifically states so in the parents court order.  

You can try and be involved in the kids life but understand that the courts can also remove you totally and the repercussions of that might be that when the child comes to see dad you may have to leave.  Yes it has happened.  No matter if the BM is abusive and all the things you said in other posts about her, the courts have not removed her from the childs life, nor have I seen (I could be wrong) anything about supervised visits for the BM, therefore perhaps the courts have not deemed her as bad a person you say she is.  I do understnad tho that we all know our cases better than the attorney's and the judges and we all have our opinions and know differently, and I also understand we have the tendancy to over dramatize.  

I read with interest the posts going on back and forth here and as another mom I think you are in that protective stage and want to do what is right, however you need to understand that it is not your cause, and you need to allow the parents to make a rational decision and back down a bit.  While you can give your opinion, it is obviously biased, and perhaps the better thing to do is to have your husband set up an appointment with a physician or 2 that is familiar with the vaccine, and speak to him or her to make his own opinion and decision.  

I believe that your original question as to who can give permission for the vaccine with both parents having joint cusotdy has been answered.  Anything beyond that I think you need to consult an attorney and perhpas get a court ruling on that.  However, understand that even court orders are broken and you can not really do anything after the vaccine has been given.

Perhaps the best thing you can do is be there for the child to speak to and not be a part of the bickering that she sees and feels in a high conflict post dissolution.

Just my 2 cents.................

[Kitty C.]

So basically you're saying you can pick and choose who you believe, right?  If the FDA is part of the governemnt and if VAERS is part of the govenment, you just pick whichever one suits your needs, right?

That's what I mean by contradicting..........either govenment agency could be right..........OR wrong.  Like you said, you don't believe everything you read, but apparently those VAERS reports are as good as gospel for you.  Seems you've certainly accepted those reports only at face value, so you've contradicted yourself AGAIN.

Yes, you most definitely very emotionally involved.  I've been in my teenage SS's life since he was 2 and there have been MANY occasions where I have asserted myself/my opinion about certain situations involving SS and his BM.  I have learned that I can give DH my opinion, but that is where it stops, period.  What DH does with it is strictly up to him and I have absolutely no say-so in the matter, no matter how emotionally involved I might be.

Another poster made the suggestion that you back off before you're ordered to by the court.  I strongly recommend it as well.  If you REALLY want to help your SD, it would be the best thing for her, before you do any damage to her relationship with her father.

Just remember one thing...........all who have posted here in response to you are giving their opinions and views of the situation, their 'recommendations'.  Absolutely NO one has 'ordered' you to do anything.......they can't.  So don't go 'assuming' we're trying to force you to do anything, nothing could be further from the truth.  But if you post here, you will get dissenting views.  If you don't like what you see/hear, you don't have to continue posting here.

[dipper]

**Did she realize that it wasn't a vaccine for cancer? I have scheduled tons of girls for appointments for this vaccine, and I cringe every time I hear the girls being "informed" about it. Typically, it goes something like this:

Girl: Wait, what's that for? Why do I need a shot?
Mom: It will keep you from getting cancer.
Girl: Oh, cool. "***

Yes, my daughter did know what the vaccination is for.  And yes, she still wanted a vaccine that could actually protect her...imagine that.    I stated specifically that she knew, so there was no need for you to question.  

For you to want the right to pick what shots your stepdaughter gets, you should have a little more consideration that some people do want their children to have these shots and that is their right.....their choice, not yours.

Also, the doctor should explain it fully to the patient as that is their job...to inform their patients and our doctor and I discussed this fully in front of my daughter....

I have not read all the posts, I missed a few days and this thing took off....but, I did get the notion once that this was more a matter of just not wanting bm to get her way.  Now its a mission against a vaccine and an effort to keep others from having their children protected....or in my opinion at any rate.....

[Sanche99]

>As all of us second moms and dads wish to be involved in our
>step childs life, the fact is that you are not a party of the
>courts order therefore you have no say in anything regarding
>the kids unless it specifically states so in the parents court
>order.  

Of course.  However, what I am doing is at the request of my husband, who has joint legal custody of his daughter.  

>You can try and be involved in the kids life but understand
>that the courts can also remove you totally and the
>repercussions of that might be that when the child comes to
>see dad you may have to leave.  

Um, no, it can't.  Unless she can prove I am a danger to SD, she can't make it so that DH can only see his daughter if I'm not there.  Perhaps it's happened in a few isolated cases, but with our history, there is no possible way.  

> No
>matter if the BM is abusive and all the things you said in
>other posts about her, the courts have not removed her from
>the childs life, nor have I seen (I could be wrong) anything
>about supervised visits for the BM, therefore perhaps the
>courts have not deemed her as bad a person you say she is.  

That is because we have not taken it to the courts yet.  We are in the process of doing that.  Oh except for the fact that they didn't care if she moved in with a sex offender.  Which is why we're getting all of our ducks in a row, so to speak:  Because it's obvious to us and the professionals around us that the courts do NOT care about the best interest of the child.

>I read with interest the posts going on back and forth here
>and as another mom I think you are in that protective stage
>and want to do what is right, however you need to understand
>that it is not your cause, and you need to allow the parents
>to make a rational decision and back down a bit.  

I have made it clear that that is EXACTLY what I was doing here.  My husband ASKED ME to find out about making sure his daughter did not get this shot.  So I asked here.  I was pretty disappointed to discover that most people here don't actually care about helping with that, they just want to bash.  Luckily, I got a very good suggestion in another forum, and that has served us well:  SD had her appointment on Monday, and she did not receive the vaccine.

>Perhaps the best thing you can do is be there for the child to
>speak to and not be a part of the bickering that she sees and
>feels in a high conflict post dissolution.

And that is exactly what I have done.  So has my husband.  And after about 10 years, she knows that we are not going to cause problems just to cause problems, and that we wil support her and have her best interests at heart.

[Sanche99]

>Yes, my daughter did know what the vaccination is for.  

Good.  Why can't you just end it there?

>For you to want the right to pick what shots your stepdaughter
>gets, you should have a little more consideration that some
>people do want their children to have these shots and that is
>their right.....their choice, not yours.

You're absolutely right, which is why I have no problem with people giving their kids shots, as long as they are informed.  I believe I have stated that quite a few times already.

>I have not read all the posts, I missed a few days and this
>thing took off....but, I did get the notion once that this was
>more a matter of just not wanting bm to get her way.  Now its
>a mission against a vaccine and an effort to keep others from
>having their children protected....or in my opinion at any
>rate.....

Not at all.  I have made it clear, over and over, that I believe the decision to administer vaccines to children is a personal one.  That as long as the parents are informed, I have no problem with it, whether they vaccinate or not.  

And this was not just not wanting BM to get her way.  It was an issue of the father of the child making sure that his daughter was safe, what HE believes to be the safer course.