In California, an underground network of anti-vax doctors will write your kid a medical exemption letter to get them out of their vaccinations


#37

I understand that Sears is already under investigation by the Medical Board of California.

In articles I’ve read about this in the past, some doctors have said that they use the alternative vaccination schedule as a way to at least get children vaccinated sometime when their parents were planning to not vaccinate at all. I personally think the better solution is to refuse to be their doctor, but I have some sympathy for the doctors who are trying to find creative ways to get their idiot patients to get the health care they need.

We should also consider quarantining places like Sebastopol where vaccination rates have dropped below the herd immunity threshold, though that would make it harder for me to get from Bodega Bay to Santa Rosa.


#38

MMML = Massive Medical Malpractice Liability.
California does seem to be a magnet for doctors with shaky ethical underpinnings.


#39

Shit, I stand corrected. I never imagined my opinion of the hoi poloi could be too charitable.


#40

Difference being, smoking weed is extremely unlikely to put anyone at risk, and additionally bolsters the funyion and doritos market ten fold.


#41

That’s only true if you’re willing to accept massive collateral disease, injury and death as necessary to weed out the stupid.

Keep in mind, when anti-vaxxers don’t vaccinate little billy and sally, that puts everyone’s infants at risk, and all the immunocompromised people, and those who can’t be vaccinated for legitimate reasons like life-threatening allergies.

Saying “it’ll all shake out in the end” is like saying gun control isn’t necessary because all the ammosexuals will shoot the badguys eventually.


#42

Sure. But it was still using wrong means to achieve a good end.


#43

I agree with that. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it’s better than sending people to jail and literally taking away all their opportunities for work and a bunch of their civil rights. On the other hand, I really hate that it’s gaming the medical system.


#44

I guess my point is: If you blow up a norm to “do good” this one time, it will have consequences. And I suspect that applies beyond this particular instance.

On the other other hand, I’m not disputing that medical marijuana may have been a necessary stepping stone to sufficient public acceptance, so it’s difficult to weigh the total ethical outcome. Just pointing out the likely connection.


#45

again, joke.


#46

Except, the opportunistic diseases will attack both the non-vaccinated with healthy immune systems and the cannot-be-vaccinated with immature or distressed immune systems. Guess who is “punished” more?


#47

seems like people are more polarized than ever, maybe we should create isolation zones so that instead of having to argue and feud about abortion or legal marijuana or vaccines we can just create micro states where proponents of X can love in peace.

theres enough land in this country that isnt being used for jack shit. every radical view could have its own cult compound


#48

That’s a terrible idea. The land you are calling “unused” is marginal at best, and should be left as wilderness, or you failed to notice it’s being utilized about as well as it can be. For that matter, I don’t want to live in a bubble and would never move to such a place.


#49

Forget requiring shots to enter school.

If we want full immunization, proof of immunization must be required to enter Disney.


#50

Physicians against public health?

Physicians against health?


#51

Doctors Against Humanity?

Doctors without Boundaries?


#52

Datapoint of one but I quit smoking pot when I was 25 precisely because my use was putting others at risk. I caused a car accident, and although no one was injured, it clued me into the realization that my fun was having negative real-world consequences … so I quit for almost a decade.


#53

Any mind-altering substance is going to put people at risk, so as you note the decision to prohibit one should be made on the probability of its putting a large number of people at serious risk of harm. Unfortunately the U.S. political culture has a tendency to make those decisions based not on statistics and medical consensus but rather on moral panics, pressure from favoured industries, or the prohibition’s utility in suppressing certain classes or races.

Once a popular mind-altering substance is banned under those faulty criteria there are always doctors willing to write scrips for it. During the otherwise dry 1920s in the U.S. medicinal and sacramental alcohol flowed more freely and copiously than they did before or after Prohibition. Prudish conservatives never seem to learn the right lessons from the past they claim to venerate.

Really, though, the “prohibition” in question here (namely, unvaccinated kids are prohibited from attending public schools) is not comparable to the prohibitions of alcohol or pot in the U.S. except as another illustration that there are always doctors who, for good reasons or bad, will attempt to circumvent them. That fact does not make the concept of prohibition of certain things bad and unworkable and of itself.


#54

Yup. Sometimes because of it’s absence. The guys endangering other people’s life by not using non-mind-altering medicine clearly haven’t had enough of a drug called knowledge.
And while it’s not classified as a substance, it is far from insubstantial.


#55

#56

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.