Doctor Issues

[Sanche99]

>The judge doesn't have to order it. The mother has every right
>to request it from the doctor.

So what?  She can "request" whatever she wants, but if the other LEGAL parent of the child requests the opposite happen, it needs to go to court if they are both going to push for it.  I'm sure you're aware of cases where one parent, say, wants the child to have an operation and the other parent doesn't?  

Yeah, if we make it known to the doctor that she is NOT to get it, he can't get it.  If her mother then wants to make her get it, she'll have to take it to court.  I asked because I wasn't sure of the proper course to take.  On this forum, I got a bunch of flak for not being a sheep, and not wanting my SD to be a guinea pig for the drug company.  No actual help for this issue, though.  I finally went elsewhere for that.

[Sanche99]

>Keep in mind that you have nothing but ASSERTIONS that the
>vaccine has caused deaths. Not that the person who claimed
>that is trying to stop her daughter from getting the vaccine,
>but has not provided any references supporting her assertion.

Sorry, didn't realize I had stumbled upon a debate forum.  Get your panties out of a bunch.  I told you where you can find this information:  The VAERS website.  They are required to report it.  

>And even if it were true, it comes down to the same thing as
>the polio vaccine. The first version of the polio vaccine did
>cause an occasional death - but saved 1000 lives for every
>death. Since you have no way of knowing whether your kid would
>die of polio, it made statistical sense to get the vaccine.

Wow...Just...Wow.  You are not SERIOUSLY comparing HPV to POLIO, are you?  One was a disease that was running rampant throughout the country, killing and paralyzing thousands, and ANYONE could get it.  The other is something that a few teens might get if they are having unprotected sex, and even then, it only *might* turn into cervical cancer, and IF they don't get checked every year, it MIGHT cause a few deaths.  

[Sanche99]

>You have no grounds to sue him. You're making groundless
>threats to try to control a situation you have no right to
>control.

Are you kidding me???  DH has no right to make medical decisions regarding his own daughter???  He would ABSOLUTELY have the right to file charges against the doctor.  

>No, but they've been doing vaccine studies for many decades,
>and the accumulated knowledge is helpful. For example,
>reactions and side effects to vaccines almost never occur
>after the first few weeks.

General knowledge does NOT dictate what a particular vaccine will do.  Have they done a study over 30 years?  Nope.  

>It's not. It does, however, indicate that you don't know
>enough about the subject to be making the blanket assertions
>and accusations you're making.

No, I guess reading everything I can about the subject (from both sides), talking to medical students, and working with doctors for 10 years means nothing.  Next to making money, of course.

>Why not learn something about how the testing is done and
>reported and how the FDA approves a vaccine before taking a
>knee-jerk response against it?

I have.  Just because YOU disagree with my conclusions doesn't mean that I am uneducated.  

[mistoffolees]

>
>>You have no grounds to sue him. You're making groundless
>>threats to try to control a situation you have no right to
>>control.
>
>Are you kidding me???  DH has no right to make medical
>decisions regarding his own daughter???  He would ABSOLUTELY
>have the right to file charges against the doctor.  

Not if the doctor is following orders from a parent who has the right to have the daughter vaccinated.

You might want to calm down and check your facts. Better yet, consult an attorney before making threats.

>
>>No, but they've been doing vaccine studies for many decades,
>>and the accumulated knowledge is helpful. For example,
>>reactions and side effects to vaccines almost never occur
>>after the first few weeks.
>
>General knowledge does NOT dictate what a particular vaccine
>will do.  Have they done a study over 30 years?  Nope.  

General knowledge is PART of knowing what is going to happen. No one ever said that it was a 30 year study. That's your arbitrary requirement. Why not 1,000 years?

In reality, the FDA has requirements for vaccine testing. The fact that they do not meet YOUR standards doesn't change that.

>
>>It's not. It does, however, indicate that you don't know
>>enough about the subject to be making the blanket assertions
>>and accusations you're making.
>
>No, I guess reading everything I can about the subject (from
>both sides), talking to medical students, and working with
>doctors for 10 years means nothing.  Next to making money, of
>course.

Well, if you had read a lot about the subject, you would know that they don't intentionally infect people with the virus. When you made that statement, it demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don't have any idea waht you're talking about.

>
>>Why not learn something about how the testing is done and
>>reported and how the FDA approves a vaccine before taking a
>>knee-jerk response against it?
>
>I have.  Just because YOU disagree with my conclusions doesn't
>mean that I am uneducated.  

It's not that I disagree with your conclusions. Your own statement indicated that you don't have any idea how the studies were done or how vaccines are tested. That is more than enough to make all your statements questionable.

[Genie]

if they can't agree, one parent (usually the one with primary placement), has the right to make the decision. Geting both parent's "imput" really means nothing because the one with ultimate decision making authority will still go on what they think.

You can't run into court everytime you disagree. I don't know if this would be considered a major medical decision b/c vaccines are standard practice and many states are requiring or thinking of requiring this one for school.

I don't agree with the vaccine only b/c I feel that it gives girls more lisence to have sex.  Now they won't have to "worry" about getting HPV even though it doesn't cover all the strains.  Below Sanchez kept saying it needed "30 years of research" to be considered effective.  Well, even 30 years doesn't mean it will work or last how it should.  The measles/mumps shots I got as a kid should be redone b/c they think they don't last forever.  Never got them redone but should.

I never agreed with the chicken pox shot being mandatory.  If you don't get it as a child I do think you should have it as an adolesent b/c it is so much worse.  But I didn't think it should be mandatory for school.  But my girls have both gotten it.  And they haven't done that many years research and don't even know now if it is permanent. It may need to be redone at some point.

[Kitty C.]

I've been in healthcare for 20-25 years (not 10) and have had plenty of vaccines in my life.  I could not be in healthcare or work as an EMT-B without taking the Hep B series.  And I vivdly remember the vaccines we HAD to take in grades school, back in the 60's and 70's.

The polio vaccine is one of the greatest discoveries of mankind.  And when it was initially given, it certainly wasn't after waiting 30 years or better to see what the long-term side effects were.  And that vaccine has saved millions, if not billions of lives.  And I would venture to say that everyone currently posting on this site has had it.  AND the guidelines that the FDA used to approve this vaccine are more lenient then the ones they use now.

There have been plenty of vaccines and medicines that have been put on the market that have not had long term studies done on them.  I would also venture to say that the majority of the females on this site have taken some form of oral contraceptive/patch at some point in their life.  And OC's have only been on the market for 40+ years.  The potential long term side effects of OC's can be just as dangerous as Gardasil.  I found that out, too.  Two years ago, all of a sudden my blood pressure went up dramatically and my PCP yanked me off the Patch immediately.  I really had no alternative (given our situation) but to have my tubes tied.  But the potential for other side effects is enormous and still there are millions/billions of women who use them.  More women have died from the side effects of birth control meds in relation to the time it has been on the market than Gardasil, and it sounds like more parents are willing to put their girls on BC than they are to give them a vaccine.  And the girls need both, IMO.  

To me, there is absolutely NO difference.  

[Sanche99]

>Not if the doctor is following orders from a parent who has
>the right to have the daughter vaccinated.

Yet if the doctor has two conflicting orders, BOTH from parents who have the right to make medical decisions for the child, he can be in a heap of trouble if he gives her the shot.

>You might want to calm down and check your facts. Better yet,
>consult an attorney before making threats.

I did.  I believe I posted the answer to you already.

>General knowledge is PART of knowing what is going to happen.
>No one ever said that it was a 30 year study. That's your
>arbitrary requirement. Why not 1,000 years?

Yes, PART.  They've been doing studies for years, yet they have pulled vaccines VERY recently.  What does that tell you?  That they can't know the full effects of the vaccines until they have been followed for longer than their "studies" last.  

As for the time limit...Well, gee, since humans don't live 1,000, I don't see what sense it would make to try to follow how the vaccine might affect someone over the next 1,000 years.  However, people DO generally live to be in their 40's, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to know how it will affect them years down the road.

As for the polio vaccine...Interesting that you mentioned that one, consider that the OPV has been pulled and is no longer used.  Because despite being very effective, it also causes polio in some patients.  Took them YEARS to pull it, too.  And it was done recently.  

>Well, if you had read a lot about the subject, you would know
>that they don't intentionally infect people with the virus.

Yes, I know that.  That's WHY I made it.  Because it's obvious they can't do that, so I would like to know how they can claim that it's so effective.  

>When you made that statement, it demonstrated beyond any doubt
>that you don't have any idea waht you're talking about.

*LOL*  No, you simply proved that you can't read my mind.  

>It's not that I disagree with your conclusions. Your own
>statement indicated that you don't have any idea how the
>studies were done or how vaccines are tested. That is more
>than enough to make all your statements questionable.

No, my statement was perfectly logical.  You are the one who jumped to some ridiculous conclusion based on the fact that I made a sarcastic statement.  

[Sanche99]

>if they can't agree, one parent (usually the one with primary
>placement), has the right to make the decision. Geting both
>parent's "imput" really means nothing because the one with
>ultimate decision making authority will still go on what they
>think.

When one parent absolutely refuses to allow a doctor to do something, the other parent must go to court if they want it done.  Our case is further complicated by the fact that we are in limbo right now regarding physical custody (the ex has it at the moment, she has had it for years, but SD has been living with us since last fall).  However, that is not the issue, as both parents have legal custody.

>You can't run into court everytime you disagree.

Well, you COULD.  They would then probably give one parent legal custody.  And we aren't running in to court.  In fact, in the past we have held our tongues and not said anything about what we believed were unnecessary procedures.  However, THIS is not something my husband is prepared to sit back and allow to happen.  It's too important.

>Below Sanchez kept saying it needed "30 years of
>research" to be considered effective.  Well, even 30 years
>doesn't mean it will work or last how it should.  

No, it doesn't.  But at least then we'd know if it made the girls who got the shot infertile, or caused other kinds of cancer.

[Sanche99]

>I've been in healthcare for 20-25 years (not 10) and have had
>plenty of vaccines in my life.  I could not be in healthcare
>or work as an EMT-B without taking the Hep B series.  And I
>vivdly remember the vaccines we HAD to take in grades school,
>back in the 60's and 70's.

Interesting, because many of those vaccines have been pulled from the shelves.  Why?  Because the side effects were too risky.  They really weren't safe.  Just because YOU were ok is like saying it's not a big deal to wear seat belts, since Grandma and Grandpa never wore them and they are still around.

>The polio vaccine is one of the greatest discoveries of
>mankind.  And when it was initially given, it certainly wasn't
>after waiting 30 years or better to see what the long-term
>side effects were.  And that vaccine has saved millions, if
>not billions of lives.  

You're not SERIOUSLY comparing polio to HPV, are you?  I mean, being in healthcare, I would think you would know there is a HUGE difference.  One is a virus that is transmitted ONLY through sex, and if you happen to get it, it MIGHT turn into cancer, and IF you don't get annual pap tests, you'll get pretty sick.  The other is a virus that was rampaging the entire COUNTRY, and all you had to do to get it was be around someone who had it (transmitted through contaminated stool, so if your spoon wasn't clean enough, you could get it;  also transmitted orally...unlike HPV, which is ONLY transmitted through sex).  If someone had it, it could take as much as a MONTH for them to start showing signs.  But they were contagious for about a week, week and a half.  

The risks sound pretty different to me.  One, you can reduce (even completely eliminate) your exposure to, and even if you get it, an annaul pap test should find it.  The other, you can't do a thing to keep from being exposed.

>And I would venture to say that
>everyone currently posting on this site has had it.  

Well, gee, which version?  They don't even generally recommend the oral polio vaccine anymore!

>There have been plenty of vaccines and medicines that have
>been put on the market that have not had long term studies
>done on them.  

So what???  That makes it ok?  It's a crapshoot.  A lot of the time, they are pulled from the market because it's discovered that they are a lot more harmful than helpful.  Thanks, but my kids won't be the guinea pigs to determine which it'll be.

>The potential
>long term side effects of OC's can be just as dangerous as
>Gardasil.  

Yes, that's why I don't use them.

If you want it, fine.  Get it, give it to your kids, whatever.  I don't care.  Just don't try to FORCE other parents to give it to theirs.

[Kitty C.]

Where do you get off telling me I'm trying to force anyone to do anything?????  Seems to me you're WAY too emotional about this issue to even TRY to look at it objectively.  I couldn't force anyone reading this thread to blink, let alone get them to have their children immunized.  Sounds like you need to back off and rethink.....

Now that I see where you're 'really' coming from, I know that this whole thread's main issue probably doesn't have anything to do with the vaccine.  And I won't further comment to anyone who doesn't hesitate to put words in my mouth.  I NEVER mentioned anything about ORAL polio, just polio.  And you can't tell me you never got it. And I NEVER was comparing the two vaccines, JUST that the side effects for MANY vaccines and meds are just as dangerous as those of Gardasil, but no one seems to be paying any attention to that.  Being so selective in what one wants to consider can be dangerous, too.