Given the pervasive corruption and administrative clusterfuck that is our health care system, I’m not sure I’m inclined to leave the asking of questions up to other people, just like I don’t take for granted the testimony coming from GM executives or NSA officials.
Fortunately, you don’t have to trust any corrupt American for-profit institutions, because there are medical institutions (and doctors) all over the world that are not corrupt, not for-profit, have no profit-motive, have impeccable reputation, study the safety themselves, and they concur, and you can trust them.
Nothing is being overlooked or swept under the carpet, regardless of what the state of things might be in the USA.
I think you have too generous a view of so-called nonprofit hospitals. The fact is that nonprofit hospitals bill the same rates as private hospitals, have the same administrators working to keep costs down (and margins up), and pay their employees competitive salaries with bonuses for how many procedures they perform or how much their department makes. Administrators and directors of these hospitals get paid millions a year. Most of these hospitals get government money to cover care for those who can’t afford full rate, and At the end of the year only end up donating 1-2% of their services to the poor. They don’t have shareholders taking a profit but they don’t pay corporate or real estate taxes either. There is some good that comes put of all that money; ones that are doing well will often put extra money into research or improving facilities that raises the level of care, but much of this is also done to raise the prestige of the hospital and put a feather in the cap of the administrators and donors. Don’t confuse a lack of corporate profit with a lack of individual profit motive or greed.
Don’t get me wrong; not all doctors are motivated by greed. I know - some of my best friends are doctors (including my wife). But it’s frightening to see how much that element creeps in to every level of care.
She appeared on the trashy reality show ‘Wahlburgers.’ Because she’s dating one of them, there’s apparently a hot dog on the menu named after her. I’m a vegetarian, and live on the left coast, so, I would never realistically eat there, but, if there were a Wahlburgers in my neighborhood, I’d be organizing a boycott of the place.
No, your comments are still stubbornly describing the AMERICAN healthcare system. My point was that you don’t need to trust sources like the ones you are describing… ones that you don’t trust. You can look at the big picture, globally. You don’t need to be provincial about this. And you can look beyond just hospitals, there are pure research institutions, there are universities (there are universities that don’t follow any of the US funding models…), there are private foundations operated by doctors, there are independent government departments in non-corrupt countries, there are independently funded institutions with no horse in the race. There are situations where the incentives are polar opposite to the things you describe and the people STILL concur. It’s a big BIG world, and vaccines are more studied than many things where you would assume someone was crazy to argue that something this big was being hidden.
I’m in America. I’m sorta locked in to this particular health care system.and just to reiterate (since nobody actually seems to be reading my comments) what I was saying was in no way meant to suggest that vaccines are not effective or necessary, or largely a benefit to individuals and society at large.
That’s it - I’m done. I’ve said my peace on vaccines and the health care system (in America) and I won’t be drawn in to being a Jenny McCarthy defender or anti-vaxer as some people seem to want as a punching bag. G’night, internets.
FWIW, my intention wasn’t punching bag at all. I understand your suspicion of the institutions here, because I agree they deserve the suspicion; I don’t trust them as far as I could spit. But I didn’t come from here, I’ve lived in other places, and I wanted you to know that there are places where the difference is night and day, especially in terms of corruption and conflicts of interest. There are trustworthy people and trustworthy institutions out there. There are institutions who, when they conclude “Doing this is a lot safer than not doing it”, you can trust them to be acting in your interests, and you can trust them to know what they’re talking about.
Each year there is a definite number of people killed by drinking water. I would not, however, reccomend giving up water to save yourself.
Doctors KNOW that a definite number of people will have “severe reactions” (and the ‘severe’ in ‘severe reactions’ isn’t actually all that severe in most reported cases), and that there will be a definite number of deaths. That is; they KNOW that people will be killed by the vaccine. But they ALSO know that every cost-benefit calculation has benefits, as well as the costs … which is all certain people (choughyoucough) ever seem to mention. And the benefits of the vaccine programme are simply immense. As tragic and sad as each death caused by the vaccines is, the joy and happiness granted to all the people who will live lives not blighted by diseases is all but beyond measure.
The NVIC is not a scientific authority any more than any other court.
It’s purpose isn’t to do research, or even use research to come to scientific conclusions.
The single purpose for the NVIC is to pay money to people who claim they or their children were injured by vaccines. The NVIC was set up as a reaction to public outcry generated by Wakefield’s fraudulent papers. People complained to the government that all of their autistic children were being given autism by government mandated vaccinations, so the government set up a court to hand out money to people claiming injury as a way of quieting them down.
The NVIC doesn’t do science. It does politics. Just because it hands out money doesn’t mean that its admission of guilt is in any way scientifically valid.
Uh…just because someone argued you into a corner doesn’t mean they’re being “unreasonable”. Maybe try to keep the whining out of your responses and this can remain elevated beyond what you think are the standard “internet/vaccine” tones. If anyone is lowering the discussion to that level, it be you, when you can’t help but throw crap like that in at the end.
Yes, but the point is that the standards for vaccines go beyond the US health system. So it doesn’t matter that you’re locked into it or not - it’s the same standards as many other countries, so the corruption or monopolizing going on in the US system is largely meaningless, and renders that part of your argument meaningless.
No one is labeling you as WANTING to be a Jenny McCarthy defender or anti-vaxer, but we are pointing our that your arguments make you that regardless. What you say and do is what labels you, not what you think you are or are doing.
I certainly agree that it is good to be informed and I think that there are many doctors out there who don’t even want to discuss the risks of treatments - they just expect their patients to be good rule followers. But my entire point was that we can’t just ask questions, we need to think about where the answers to those question are coming from and what we are going to do with those answers.
So it’s hard to find a “reasonable” discussion. But I’m not thrilled with what you are presenting as reasonable. If we agree that people should be informed about medical treatments that affect them, and that doctors should do a better job of informing people, what do we do now? To me, that is a reasonable discussion.
I can see how in the first question I lumped you and McCarthy together and that wasn’t fair. But I honestly think these are reasonable questions and part of a reasonable discussion.
This issue touches a nerve for a good reason. If one person chooses not to vaccinate they largely benefit from the vaccine anyway but avoid the personal risk of an adverse reaction. Is a defection in the prisoner’s dilemma, it is freeloading on a very dire responsibility. The fact that people choosing that option don’t entirely understand this doesn’t help. It’s fine to say their intentions were good, but their intentions were not good. They subscribe to a belief system that weighs the health of their own child much heavier than the health of the children of others and they confirm that bias with trumped up evidence. They celebrate the fact that they are just mothers trying to do what’s best for their children despite the cost to others around them.
I like to look at this issue in the same terms as human subjects research. There are a number of concerns which bear contemplation here.
1.) Are we dealing with a vulnerable population (such as children)?
2.) Does the participant receive a direct or indirect benefit from what is being done to them?
3.) What are the known or possible risks to the participant?
4.) Who else benefits from their participation?
In some cases the risk/reward ratio does not seem overall beneficial to the individual, but may be beneficial to the entire population. In other situations, the vaccine seems to offer risk but little benefit to either the individual or the population.
One example is the Hep B vaccine. Since this virus is only spread through contact with blood and other bodily fluids, it seems odd that it should be administered to the majority of US newborns. If the mother has detectable Hep B antibodies, of course it makes sense; it also makes sense if the child is born with a condition that will require administration of blood products. (And no, the vaccine is not effective in preventing occult transmission.) Yet despite the relatively small reward for automatic Hep B vaccination of newborns, this is considered routine in the US.
It’s worthwhile to think both in terms of the vaccines’ risk/reward to individuals versus populations, and ethical considerations that this entails. Who are we willing to risk sacrificing (or making seriously ill) for the common good, and why? This is not a rhetorical question. I am merely suggesting that when those incurring the highest risk may not be the ones reaping the greatest benefit, we have to be very certain of the reasons for our actions.
Those taking the risks or their parents/guardians should still have the ability to opt out. This is not to say that most people have medical reasons to opt out, just that everyone should have the choice. Forcing people into medical procedures for their own good (or to prevent harm to others) is not accepted practice in most places except under extreme circumstances. People have the right to decide that immediate benefit or risk reduction for them/their children is the most important aspect of medical decision making. The morality of this reasoning is up for debate, but their individual rights are not.
A great many vaccines are low risk to the majority, and present few ethical dilemmas if any. But there are vaccines that pose a higher risk relative to their potential benefit (esp. for certain populations), and warrant more thoughtful decision-making before administration. I think few wish to acknowledge that.
I would be willing to wager that the risk of harm from accidental exposure to Hepatitis B is considerably higher than the risk presented by the vaccine.
Hep B is transmitted through exposure at birth (infected mother), sex, needle drugs, and more rarely through blood transfusion, unsanitary tattooing, or unsanitary medical instruments. For babies, the danger of infection at birth is likely the assumption. Hospital employees wouldn’t expect the mother to admit if she had been shooting up or having unprotected sex with multiple partners. That being said, it might make sense to do the automatic Hep B vaccination in areas that unfortunately see more needle drug abuse or prostitution (often low SES areas), and to inform parents in other areas that they are welcome to opt in to the vaccine. Accidental exposure seems unlikely except by a mother who abused drugs or had sex with an infected person.
Yes, the risk of harm from accidental exposure to Hep B can be higher than risk of adverse response to the vaccine - in certain populations. Not all of them.
At any rate, if a woman is aware that she has minimal risk of being infected with Hep B or other blood-borne diseases (not a needle drug abuser, not having unprotected sex with multiple partners, etc.), it would probably be less risky to ask that her child not receive that one particular vaccination.
Hep B can also come from cuts, bites from other kids, nosebleeds. It lives for seven to ten days out in the world. About 3000 people die every year from complications of it, 30% of those who contract it get it in childhood. That’s basically a thousand deaths that we have right now with vaccination.
It’s not about the mom having unprotected sex, it’s about her kid getting a liver issue when they’re seven because of a contaminated blood transfusion. Measles didn’t used to be a problem either until recently.
You give a common sense explanation of why Hep B vaccines are not of worth the risk, but “common sense” shouldn’t mean anything in decisions like this. By saying that Hep B vaccination is considered routine “in the US” you make it sound like the US has a weird policy here. Searching the WHO’s database of vaccine schedules, picking developed nations mostly at random, I couldn’t find one that didn’t give a Hep B vaccine.
If you were the dissenting voice on international panels discussing whether Hep B vaccination had a suitable risk/reward ratio I’d be interested to see your minority report. If you are merely speaking as a lay person and saying that Hep B vaccination doesn’t seem right to you then you’ll understand if the rest of us don’t give a lot of weight to that. I do not trust my common sense to tell me which vaccines are right, I’m certainly not going to trust anyone else’s.
And the rest of us should exercise our choice to castigate people who choose their own health over the health of the community. As I said above, it’s a choice that has to be socially discouraged because when we talk about once endemic diseases that have now been eradicated, the risk to the individual of not vaccinating may outweigh the risk of vaccinating. If too many people think that way then the disease comes back and everyone suffers.
Rather, I was trying to be sure that I did not make claims broader than my current knowledge base. I wasn’t attempting to imply that the US was unusual; I just don’t want to take any chance of spreading false information on the internet. There’s enough of that already. No offense was intended.
I have a degree related to the topic of which we speak (that is, within the biosciences). I’m not claiming to be an expert, nor am I claiming authority. Also, in case I’ve been misunderstood, I am not trying to give any medical advice. Merely my proverbial “two cents.” I’m not just speaking based on hunches or common sense. Even so, why should you trust me, some random person on the internet? You don’t know who I am. Of course you shouldn’t trust me.
You absolutely have the choice to castigate people for their choices. Problem is, if people believe someone’s being hostile (whether it’s meant that way or not) they’re often more likely to disregard the information being given. Education is key, though I don’t believe that it can fit into a sound bite.
Jenny McCarthy’s message was that vaccines should be avoided because they hurt children. But the opposition’s message, that vaccinations are always good, doesn’t really amount to informed consent either. Is it better than what McCarthy was saying? Of course. Is it completely accurate? No. Governments ought to care about educating people regarding their health, but they often don’t. So people become misinformed about healthcare and science, including vaccines.
If we have to choose one extreme or the other, saying that vaccines are either completely “good” or “bad,” then surely telling people they’re “good” is more beneficial. But it would be even better if we didn’t have to assume that people must be lied to for their own good. Besides, if people understood why vaccines are normally beneficial, (and how they cause side effects that are typically mild) they’d be less likely to believe pseudoscience from extreme anti-vaccine folks on the internet. One might well see higher vaccination rates as a result of education.
I agree with you that lack of vaccination usually leads to greater suffering and illness. Usually isn’t always, and it would be prudent to know more about who is likely to take on greater risk than benefit. In the meantime, higher rates of vaccination ideally shouldn’t be achieved through misinformation. (Note that I’m not saying you advocate misinformation, but that it seems to be the norm.) Educating the public would help with that, in addition to making them more active participants in their healthcare generally.
While contaminated blood transfusion is possible, it’s extremely rare in high SES countries where donated blood is screened for Hep B. In places where this screening isn’t mandatory, the question of whether to give the vaccine is a no-brainer. I apologize for not thinking globally enough.
Kids do bite each other and get nosebleeds, but it seems like the biter or bleeder would live in the same area as the kid who was bitten or bled on. In this hypothetical situation, I’ll make the assumptions that some areas have a higher incidence of Hep B than others, and that in areas that aren’t low-risk the kids should be vaccinated for Hep B. And the infected kid would almost certainly have been infected by the mother, in which case it does become a question of that mother’s risk.
It’s assumed that giving the vaccine is worth the risk. Whether that’s true or not depends on many factors, so it’s just easier to give it to everyone rather than do detailed assessments. In the cases of select vaccines (for infections that are not spread through casual contact) it might be better to do more thorough risk assessments. That requires time and money, though.
I won’t be replying any more because I need to shut up and stop hogging the thread. Thanks for the good conversation.
