Eve, where is the choice to vaccinate,

Avatar for suschi
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Eve, where is the choice to vaccinate,
16
Mon, 06-09-2003 - 1:15pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-10-2003 - 3:58pm
.Not directed to me, but since our story is one of those included in the collection of harassment acounts, I wanted to. Thank you for posting the links.

From the article on the Colorado couple who were forced to vaccinate their newborn with Hep B vaccine, without any allowances for second opinions/retesting of the mother;

>>>Oh, I forgot to mention, 4 days later a negative blood test came back on the mother.<<<

And where are the consequences for this false diagnosis which was used as a rationale for overriding their basic rights? Can their daughter’s “status” be restored? Their collective rights be given back? No.

Outrageous. And equally outrageous is the contention of some that such things never happen, and that all parents have freedom of choice/informed consent. In theory and the law, yes, we do. In practice, not always.

Kimberly



Avatar for catherina
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-10-2003 - 4:25pm
Kimberly,

I recognized your story =0)

As for the story about the false positive hepB test - it would have been medical negligence not to insist on treating and vaccinating that baby, that is standard medical care. At that point it was more likely that the birthmom has hepB than not and transmission to the baby was imminent.

Catherina

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 06-10-2003 - 6:33pm
Crybaby - where was the evidence that parents had "no choice"? Even in Kimberly's case - as I have stated before - consent was given and a choice was made. The first link (no, didn't read the whole thing) illustrates people being given a hard time over CHOICES that they made. As has previously been discussed to death, the choices are there and the fact that undesirable choices ARE choices nonetheless. It shouldn't be of any surprise that there are some people who are poorly educated wrt laws/recommendations, etc. - it is, after all, Texas we're talking about. LOL (being in a bordering state we hear a lot of Texan jokes).

Regarding the infant who was vaccinated with hepatitis B - the typical hepatitis B test has a 95+% sensitivity and specificity. I would guess that this fact was taken into consideration when ALL those people were in favor of vaccinating the baby. Sorry if I don't put much stock into a story written by an organization called "The Voice of Freedom". LOL. I tried to find a write up by a source that is just a wee bit *less* biased and alarmist but came up empty handed.

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Tue, 06-10-2003 - 10:31pm
Eve, it is not a choice

<>

when you are threatened and harassed.

If you think otherwise, then you need to take your blinders off AND get your head out of the sand.

It's like someone telling you that you have a choice,

their way or your way, but if you choose your way, you will get your head blown off.

What kind of choice is that?

Maybe we should call it "choice with many strings attached"

It surely isn't a choice of free will.

Pretty stupid to call that a choice.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 06-13-2003 - 4:51pm
>>>Even in Kimberly's case - as I have stated before - consent was given and a choice was made.<<<

To repeat myself here, if THAT is your idea of “choice”, you are even more antagonistic to parental choice regarding vaccination than I thought. My “choice” at the time was presented as being between walking out of the hospital with a child in need of medical care (stitches) and staying to endure repeated harassment/threats of legal action under near tortuous conditions. My knowledge of the law did not help me, since it was not acknowledged. Like the choice of remaining silent/lying under a totalitarian system OR being persecuted for NOT doing so. REAL black and white choices there, Eve. What poppycock!

Need I point out that the end result was that the intern who perpetrated this travesty was acting contrary to the law and hospital policy and was disciplined for it? But for so many, such after-the-fact justice is no compensation for the violations they suffer.

>>>The first link (no, didn't read the whole thing) illustrates people being given a hard time over CHOICES that they made.

As has previously been discussed to death, the choices are there and the fact that undesirable choices ARE choices nonetheless<<<

So how can you comment on something you didn’t even bother to read, Eve??? How hypocritical.

And yes, these people made CHOICES, as they are ENTITLED to do under the law, to make an informed choice regarding the medical care of their child. Your point is, as always, that you disagree with their choice and therefore any abuse they suffer, legally or not, no matter how horrendous, is merely a “consequences” of them choosing the “wrong” thing. Excuse me while I go throw up.

>>> It shouldn't be of any surprise that there are some people who are poorly educated wrt laws/recommendations, etc. - it is, after all, Texas we're talking about. LOL (being in a bordering state we hear a lot of Texan jokes). <<<

I am not a particular fan of Texas, despite being a third generation one, but be real; Oklahoma is the butt of jokes just as often. (Why does the gulf of Mexico extend so far north into Texas? Because Ok. sucks, of course;) We drove through Ok once on our way to Oregon, and saw a guy wearing a “farting is a competitive sport in Texas” shirt. We laughed out loud; as if HE (you would have had to see this guy) and his were much above that, in our opinion of the state;)

To imply that Texans are any more “uneducated” than others is just ignorant. I got so tired of others asking me if I knew any cowboys or had been to Gilly’s in my travels, lol! As if THAT is what Texas is all about;)

Texas has many major, cosmopolitan cities and world-class institutions of higher learning, science, industry, and entertainment.

You yourself attended college here. Does that mean your degree/qualifications are questionable?? LOL! Too bad about the weather and traffic, though, lol! As another old joke concerning why people settled here to begin with goes, “This is where the mules died”. ;)

So shame on you! Only those of us with roots here (like Maines;) are entitled to make derogatory comments regarding the state/people from it;) I myself find the political and social climate almost as inhospitable as the physical one. JMHO.

>>>Regarding the infant who was vaccinated with hepatitis B - the typical hepatitis B test has a 95+% sensitivity and specificity. I would guess that this fact was taken into consideration when ALL those people were in favor of vaccinating the baby. <<<

And yet the test was wrong. Why the resistance to a second opinion/retest? The delay would not have been any more protracted than hearings and rulings. Given the special circumstances (strong parental objections to the procedure) special allowances could easily have been made. Typical medical arrogance, imo, for which those responsible should be held accountable.

>>>>Sorry if I don't put much stock into a story written by an organization called "The Voice of Freedom". LOL. I tried to find a write up by a source that is just a wee bit *less* biased and alarmist but came up empty handed. <<<

So, you do not stoop to pointing out “bias”, huh? So, “Voice of Freedom” is somehow MORE biased than “Immunization Action” ??? Based upon??? Shheesh.

Kimberly

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 06-13-2003 - 8:12pm
>>"To repeat myself here, if THAT is your idea of “choice”, you are even more antagonistic to parental choice regarding vaccination than I thought."<<

The point is simple Kimberly - a choice was made. It wasn't a choice you were happy with but to deny that a choice was there is peurile. To conclude from my statement that I don't support choice is even moreso peurile.

>>"My “choice” at the time was presented as being between walking out of the hospital with a child in need of medical care (stitches) and staying to endure repeated harassment/threats of legal action under near tortuous conditions."<<

Oh no, your choices were more than that. You could have contacted family/friends.lawyer which you CHOSE not to based on, imo, paranoid fears of your DD being "vaccinated behind your back" (never mind that you could have taken her with you to use the phone). You could have demanded to see the director of the ER or hospital administrator who "knew the law". You could have left to another facility (and stopped by to pick up dinner on the way) - the need for stitches as you described is hardly life threatening. You could have continued to refuse (the "harrassing" doctor does go off shift sooner or later). Your choices were limited but were choices nonetheless. Crybaby's contention is that there was no choice when, in fact, there were.

>>"My knowledge of the law did not help me, since it was not acknowledged. Like the choice of remaining silent/lying under a totalitarian system OR being persecuted for NOT doing so. REAL black and white choices there, Eve. What poppycock!

That's just a bit overdramatic, Kimberly, which does your POV no justice. You were not being persecuted in a totalitarian system.

>>"Need I point out that the end result was that the intern who perpetrated this travesty was acting contrary to the law and hospital policy and was disciplined for it? But for so many, such after-the-fact justice is no compensation for the violations they suffer."<<

What discipline was that?

>>"So how can you comment on something you didn’t even bother to read, Eve??? How hypocritical."<<

I commented that I did not READ THE WHOLE THING - that doesn't mean that I did not read it. I got to page 39 and stopped, feeling that I had a pretty good "handle" on what it was all about.



>>"And yes, these people made CHOICES, as they are ENTITLED to do under the law, to make an informed choice regarding the medical care of their child. Your point is, as always, that you disagree with their choice and therefore any abuse they suffer, legally or not, no matter how horrendous, is merely a “consequences” of them choosing the “wrong” thing. Excuse me while I go throw up."<<

Thanks - my point. Crybaby's accusation was that there was NO choice. You just confirmed that there were, indeed, choices made. I have made no other point in this thread other than the FACT that they did have choices. No suggestion that there should be no choice. No suggestion that the choices they made were "wrong". No suggestion that called for vomiting though I'm sure the drama of it all was quite satisfactory to you.

>>> It shouldn't be of any surprise that there are some people who are poorly educated wrt laws/recommendations, etc. - it is, after all, Texas we're talking about. LOL (being in a bordering state we hear a lot of Texan jokes). <<<

>>"So shame on you! Only those of us with roots here (like Maines;) are entitled to make derogatory comments regarding the state/people from it;) I myself find the political and social climate almost as inhospitable as the physical one. JMHO."<<

Shame on you for going overboard with an obvious joke. Never mind the fact that I lived at one time in Texas and that my DD has "roots" in Texas being born in San Antonio. Obviously you're too much into the drama of it all to lighten up a little.

>>"And yet the test was wrong. Why the resistance to a second opinion/retest? The delay would not have been any more protracted than hearings and rulings. Given the special circumstances (strong parental objections to the procedure) special allowances could easily have been made. Typical medical arrogance, imo, for which those responsible should be held accountable. "<<

Hm, speaking of biases....yours are showing again Kimberly. LOL! Conveniently forgot that there were social workers, administrators, AND lawyers/judges involved in the decision regarding 2nd opinion/retest? What was really going on with ALL those people? Some bizarre conspiracy to make headlines on the "Voice of Freedom"?

>>"So, you do not stoop to pointing out “bias”, huh? So, “Voice of Freedom” is somehow MORE biased than “Immunization Action” ??? Based upon??? Shheesh."<<

I didn't say that I don't point out bias - I said that I don't rely on bias accusations to make a point. I really did look for another source to find a different perspective on this particular story. How odd that there were none to be found. I don't put much stock in the "Voice of Freedom" relaying the information about this story and have no idea how reliable/accurate/truthful it really is. If I had stated something to the effect that the "Voice of Freedom" is too biased to present truthful information then you would have a point. I said no such thing. The source does, however, make me want to find something else to read.

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 06-13-2003 - 11:10pm
(((>>"To repeat myself here, if THAT is your idea of “choice”, you are even more antagonistic to parental choice regarding vaccination than I thought."<< )))

>>>The point is simple Kimberly - a choice was made. It wasn't a choice you were happy with but to deny that a choice was there is peurile. To conclude from my statement that I don't support choice is even moreso peurile.<<<

When all options reasonable available are unacceptable, their can be no real choice. When you advocate the perpetuation of situations which place parents in such positions, you are an enemy of parental choice. Might as well say that the person with a gun to their head made a “choice” between dying or doing as directed to, as I guess you ARE.



>((((>"My “choice” at the time was presented as being between walking out of the hospital with a child in need of medical care (stitches) and staying to endure repeated harassment/threats of legal action under near tortuous conditions."<< )))

>>>Oh no, your choices were more than that. You could have contacted family/friends.lawyer which you CHOSE not to based on, imo, paranoid fears of your DD being "vaccinated behind your back" (never mind that you could have taken her with you to use the phone). You could have demanded to see the director of the ER or hospital administrator who "knew the law". You could have left to another facility (and stopped by to pick up dinner on the way) - the need for stitches as you described is hardly life threatening. You could have continued to refuse (the "harrassing" doctor does go off shift sooner or later). Your choices were limited but were choices nonetheless. Crybaby's contention is that there was no choice when, in fact, there were<<<

Yes, sure, in retrospect, I could have done any or all of those things. I could have carried my bleeding dd around with me for several hours, used the phone book to look up a lawyer, raised even more hell than I did, waited the intern‘s shift out for another few hours, or left the hospital with a child in need of immediate medical care, maybe taken her home and gotten out the sewing kit;) etc. .

I could have risked having her removed from my custody and/or being charged with medical neglect by refusing ALL treatment, even that indicated.

Fact is, I was not in the best of ways at the time. No-one in an emergency situation is. Trust me, I have kicked myself more than once for not handling it differently. So do most victims of an injustice. But for you to suggest that I had some clear-cut, easy choice and failed to make the correct one is like telling a rape victim they should have fought harder or not dressed so provocatively.

(((>>"My knowledge of the law did not help me, since it was not acknowledged. Like the choice of remaining silent/lying under a totalitarian system OR being persecuted for NOT doing so. REAL black and white choices there, Eve. What poppycock! )))

>>>That's just a bit overdramatic, Kimberly, which does your POV no justice. You were not being persecuted in a totalitarian system.<<<

Really? BTW, have you made that trip with one of your children to an ER posing as a non-vaxing parent yet?? Then you are in no position to speak to my experience.


(((>>"Need I point out that the end result was that the intern who perpetrated this travesty was acting contrary to the law and hospital policy and was disciplined for it? But for so many, such after-the-fact justice is no compensation for the violations they suffer."<<)))

>>>What discipline was that? <<<

Not sufficient, I am sure. Whatever they do to interns who violate hospital policy regarding patient consent to treatment. Perhaps nothing for all I know. All I can attest to is an hr long conversation with the head of his department (ER) who expressed seemingly sincere concern and irritation at his behavior and assured me she would speak with him personally./impose discipline to ensure it did not happen again. She could have lied, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, even if they are doctors, lol! Perhaps my first mistake;)

(((>>"So how can you comment on something you didn’t even bother to read, Eve??? How hypocritical."<< )))

>>>I commented that I did not READ THE WHOLE THING - that doesn't mean that I did not read it. I got to page 39 and stopped, feeling that I had a pretty good "handle" on what it was all about. <<<

Right. You failed to read the whole thing, as you have slammed others for doing in the past. As if YOU are capable of “getting a handle” on something after an incomplete reading but others are not.

(((>>"And yes, these people made CHOICES, as they are ENTITLED to do under the law, to make an informed choice regarding the medical care of their child. Your point is, as always, that you disagree with their choice and therefore any abuse they suffer, legally or not, no matter how horrendous, is merely a “consequences” of them choosing the “wrong” thing. Excuse me while I go throw up."<< )))

>>>>Thanks - my point. Crybaby's accusation was that there was NO choice. You just confirmed that there were, indeed, choices made. I have made no other point in this thread other than the FACT that they did have choices. No suggestion that there should be no choice. No suggestion that the choices they made were "wrong". No suggestion that called for vomiting though I'm sure the drama of it all was quite satisfactory to you. <<<

If your point was that such coerced “choices” represent actual choice, and that any who exercise their rights deserve whatever treatment they get, regardless of its legality, then, yes, I got your point. Quite dishonest of you to operate under the pretext that you attach no judgments to the “choices” made, however; you obviously do.

>>>>Shame on you for going overboard with an obvious joke. Never mind the fact that I lived at one time in Texas and that my DD has "roots" in Texas being born in San Antonio. Obviously you're too much into the drama of it all to lighten up a little. <<<

I am as light as a feather, here. Just presented the Yin to your Yang.

((((>>"And yet the test was wrong. Why the resistance to a second opinion/retest? The delay would not have been any more protracted than hearings and rulings. Given the special circumstances (strong parental objections to the procedure) special allowances could easily have been made. Typical medical arrogance, imo, for which those responsible should be held accountable. "<<)))



>>>Hm, speaking of biases....yours are showing again Kimberly. LOL! Conveniently forgot that there were social workers, administrators, AND lawyers/judges involved in the decision regarding 2nd opinion/retest? What was really going on with ALL those people? Some bizarre conspiracy to make headlines on the "Voice of Freedom"? <<<

No, just a common bias in favor of medical opinion vs. parental/individual choice. Which was, I repeat, eventually proven unfounded in this case.

((((>>"So, you do not stoop to pointing out “bias”, huh? So, “Voice of Freedom” is somehow MORE biased than “Immunization Action” ??? Based upon??? Shheesh."<< )))

>>>I didn't say that I don't point out bias - I said that I don't rely on bias accusations to make a point.<<<

LOL! Oh really? Your comment was crystal clear; very sarcastic and mocking of the source based on its name.

>>>I really did look for another source to find a different perspective on this particular story. How odd that there were none to be found. I don't put much stock in the "Voice of Freedom" relaying the information about this story and have no idea how reliable/accurate/truthful it really is.<<<

So you dismiss it without any idea how accurate or reliable it actually is? Oh, no bias there.

>>> If I had stated something to the effect that the "Voice of Freedom" is too biased to present truthful information then you would have a point. I said no such thing. The source does, however, make me want to find something else to read. <<<

No, as usual, you just implied it, covering your hiney to avoid bearing responsibility for your remarks/opinions. Typical.

Unless you can come up with something better, I might have to stop bothering with your posts altogether.

Kimberly


Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 06-14-2003 - 12:57am
>>"When all options reasonable available are unacceptable, their can be no real choice. When you advocate the perpetuation of situations which place parents in such positions, you are an enemy of parental choice. Might as well say that the person with a gun to their head made a “choice” between dying or doing as directed to, as I guess you ARE."<<



Yeah, that's typical. When confronted with the fact that choices are still available despite being undesirable or unacceptable the comparison is then made to having a GUN to the HEAD? Sorry, that's just an emotional ploy to dismiss the fact that the choices are there - and it doesn't work. Did you take note of the title of this thread? Where is the choice to vaccinate, or not? The choice to vaccinate or not is there - nobody will put a gun to anyone's head to take away those choices.

>>"Yes, sure, in retrospect, I could have done any or all of those things. I could have carried my bleeding dd around with me for several hours, used the phone book to look up a lawyer, raised even more hell than I did, waited the intern‘s shift out for another few hours, or left the hospital with a child in need of immediate medical care, maybe taken her home and gotten out the sewing kit;) etc. .

I could have risked having her removed from my custody and/or being charged with medical neglect by refusing ALL treatment, even that indicated.

Fact is, I was not in the best of ways at the time. No-one in an emergency situation is. Trust me, I have kicked myself more than once for not handling it differently. So do most victims of an injustice. But for you to suggest that I had some clear-cut, easy choice and failed to make the correct one is like telling a rape victim they should have fought harder or not dressed so provocatively."<<



Hm, you stated yourself in the link that the bite was small and that your DD was playing and roaming about the room. It seems in certain circumstances your DD was fine and in others she was a bleeding mess. Which one was it? You have remorse for what happened which does not negate the FACT that the other choices were there - regardless of how clearly you were (not) thinking. You've brought up the rape comparison before and it's been pointed out in the past that the situation you were in was NOT analogous to a physically violent act such as rape. More unnecessary drama.

>>"Really? BTW, have you made that trip with one of your children to an ER posing as a non-vaxing parent yet?? Then you are in no position to speak to my experience."<<



I have BEEN in the ER as the doctor (in Texas no less) in situations with anti-vax parents. I have plenty of experience in such matters and to compare to "persecution in a totalitarian system" is a bit over the top.

>>"Not sufficient, I am sure. Whatever they do to interns who violate hospital policy regarding patient consent to treatment. Perhaps nothing for all I know. All I can attest to is an hr long conversation with the head of his department (ER) who expressed seemingly sincere concern and irritation at his behavior and assured me she would speak with him personally./impose discipline to ensure it did not happen again. She could have lied, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, even if they are doctors, lol! Perhaps my first mistake;)"<<



Great - you have no idea what actually happened to the intern after all but claim that the "end result" somehow justifies your POV. How misleading is that?

>>"Right. You failed to read the whole thing, as you have slammed others for doing in the past. As if YOU are capable of “getting a handle” on something after an incomplete reading but others are not."<<



Where? Give an example of where I have done this. This piece didn't even require reading through all 64 pages to get the idea. I could have just commented and not bothered to mention that I hadn't read the whole thing. In addition, you even go on to CONFIRM what I stated - that there were choices made despite what Crybaby was insinuating.

>>"If your point was that such coerced “choices” represent actual choice, and that any who exercise their rights deserve whatever treatment they get, regardless of its legality, then, yes, I got your point. Quite dishonest of you to operate under the pretext that you attach no judgments to the “choices” made, however; you obviously do."<<



What was "coerced" about the choices that nearly ALL of these people made to NOT vaccinate? It's quite dishonest of you to draw conclusions where suggestions were never even made.

>>"I am as light as a feather, here. Just presented the Yin to your Yang."<<



You did not present a yin/yang comparison - you chastised me for making a joke about Texans predicated on my not having "roots" there when, in fact, we actually do. You went overboard defending the state and trying to heavy handedly joke about the state that I live in - it was quite hilarious.

>>"No, just a common bias in favor of medical opinion vs. parental/individual choice. Which was, I repeat, eventually proven unfounded in this case."<<

Then how does "medical arrogance" extend to include the legal system? Another poor choice of words? Do we really know for a fact that the case was proven unfounded? I still find it odd that there are no other sources for this story.



>>"LOL! Oh really? Your comment was crystal clear; very sarcastic and mocking of the source based on its name."<<



You just can't get past those quotation marks, can you? Note that I never indicated one way or the other whether the information in the article was truthful but I am interested in seeing what other sources have to say about this story. The name of the organization doesn't generate a lot of confidence in me but I am not prepared to base any reliability judgements on the name nor the apparent bias of the organization - unlike you seem fond of doing wrt the IAC.

>>"So you dismiss it without any idea how accurate or reliable it actually is? Oh, no bias there."<<

When did I dismiss it? I stated no such thing BECAUSE I can't confirm the accuracy or reliability of what was written. I stated that I looked for other sources and did not find any. I do still think it would be interesting (and possibly enlightening) to find out the perspective from someone/thing that has a different bias. Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the phrase "put much stock in". To clarify, I mean that I've given it consideration but do not consider it the authority as yet.



>>"No, as usual, you just implied it, covering your hiney to avoid bearing responsibility for your remarks/opinions. Typical.

Unless you can come up with something better, I might have to stop bothering with your posts altogether."<<



Implied what? What you wanted to hear? If it was unclear to you, I'll state it again - I reallly don't know what to make of this source and would prefer to have something else to read that summarizes the same story but with a different view. What in the world is wrong with that?

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 06-23-2003 - 5:03pm
>>The choice to vaccinate or not is there - nobody will put a gun to anyone's head to take away those choices. <<<

No, they just threaten to take your kids away, deny them schooling (which you may not be capable of providing yourself), put you in jail, and otherwise make your life a living hell. Don’t know about YOU, but I think I would RATHER have a “gun to my head” than lose my children if such is the “choice“! How dismissive and intentionally callous of you. And how typical.

>>Hm, you stated yourself in the link that the bite was small and that your DD was playing and roaming about the room. It seems in certain circumstances your DD was fine and in others she was a bleeding mess. Which one was it?<<<

Both. She was dealing very well with a rel. small bite which none the less obviously required expert care (unless I “chose” for her to live with a mangled upper lip for the rest of her life, seeing as how I am not a plastic surgeon.) Hey, ANOTHER great “choice” I could have made! Your point obviously is that I SHOULD/COULD have just taken her home and applied a band-aid and let it heal however if I didn’t want to have our legal rights violated. I find it hard to believe that even YOU consider that a reasonable “choice”. Or is it that you simply despise non-vaxers SO MUCH, you WANT to see them forced into such “choices”, just as punishment for daring to differ with your view?? As if those “choices” were in any way logical or inevitable!

>>>You have remorse for what happened which does not negate the FACT that the other choices were there - regardless of how clearly you were (not) thinking.<<<

Sure. There, but equally or MORE unacceptable. My point.

>>>You've brought up the rape comparison before and it's been pointed out in the past that the situation you were in was NOT analogous to a physically violent act such as rape. More unnecessary drama. <<<

Really? Had I been a woman unwilling to have sex with a man who then decided to hold me hostage, not with a gun, but at the threat of losing my child or my child not getting the medical care she needed, deprived me of food, drink, outside communication, sleep, etc., while returning to pressure me every half hr or so over a 12 hr period, until I was unable to resist him, I would not be fair in terming the situation a RAPE??? Even considering I HAD the “choice” to risk my child’s health/custody and given the fact that I knew he was violating the law?? Get real. As an analogy, it is rather apt, imo.

>>>I have BEEN in the ER as the doctor (in Texas no less) in situations with anti-vax parents. I have plenty of experience in such matters and to compare to "persecution in a totalitarian system" is a bit over the top.<<<

LOL! “as the doctor”. I said “as the non-vaxing PARENT”. I also have experience in such matters, remember? And I have never said that MY experience is typical, only that it HAPPENED, and should not be trivialized/mocked as you continue to do.

>>>Great - you have no idea what actually happened to the intern after all but claim that the "end result" somehow justifies your POV. How misleading is that? <<<



No, I never went back down there and checked up on his “punishment”/stole his file, lol! I reported what I was told by the head of his department. As I said, being a doctor, she may have lied.;)

(((You failed to read the whole thing, as you have slammed others for doing in the past.))))

>>>Where? Give an example of where I have done this. <<<

Oh PLEASE!!! You did it to ME not all that long ago, wrt a study you swore up and down NEVER stated what I posted it did. THEN, when I found the quote in the text of the study upon which my statement was justifiably based, you slammed me for “FINALLY” reading the whole thing! (without admitting the LIE you got caught in as a result of my doing so!) CLASSIC Eve. Still hazy? I can be much more specific, if you prefer. Again, SO typical of you to plead ignorance and demand “proof” while knowing full well the truth.

>>What was "coerced" about the choices that nearly ALL of these people made to NOT vaccinate? It's quite dishonest of you to draw conclusions where suggestions were never even made. <<<

“nearly ALL”? Which ones, iyo, WERE coerced into a false choice? I know *I* was.

>>>You did not present a yin/yang comparison - you chastised me for making a joke about Texans predicated on my not having "roots" there when, in fact, we actually do. You went overboard defending the state and trying to heavy handedly joke about the state that I live in - it was quite hilarious. <<<

“We actually do”. YOU or WE? What? You know someone from there?;) Or just went to school there? LOL!

3rd generation myself, jftr.

Glad you found my joke “hilarious”; it IS a classic;)

Nothing “heavy handed” about calling you on your obvious insult to the intelligence of Texans (as was the context your “joke” was presented in; some crack about Texans not being expected to know the law/their rights, which I took to be a sincere opinion, despite the “joke“ you linked it to) and returning a small joke of my own, imo.

>>Do we really know for a fact that the case was proven unfounded? I still find it odd that there are no other sources for this story. <<<

Oh, so you suspect deception? Which allows you to dismiss the facts as unsupported. That was easy, huh? I guess from now on, I shall have to demand other sources for all the links to stories from biased sources YOU post. Can’t just take them at face value or take the time to do my own research, can I?

If I said what I really thought of you/your comments, It would be deleted. Is THAT your goal? LOL! Fortunately, I think you can read my mind on this one;)

Kimberly





Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 06-29-2003 - 1:46am
>>"No, they just threaten to take your kids away, deny them schooling (which you may not be capable of providing yourself), put you in jail, and otherwise make your life a living hell. Don’t know about YOU, but I think I would RATHER have a “gun to my head” than lose my children if such is the “choice“! How dismissive and intentionally callous of you. And how typical."<<

I don't see that as changing the FACT that there IS no physical force involved in vaccine mandates making CHOICE perfectly available.

>>"Both. She was dealing very well with a rel. small bite which none the less obviously required expert care (unless I “chose” for her to live with a mangled upper lip for the rest of her life, seeing as how I am not a plastic surgeon.) Hey, ANOTHER great “choice” I could have made! Your point obviously is that I SHOULD/COULD have just taken her home and applied a band-aid and let it heal however if I didn’t want to have our legal rights violated. I find it hard to believe that even YOU consider that a reasonable “choice”."<<

No, Kimberly, nothing so dramatic. A small bite requiring plastics that could be taken care of in one of many facilities there in Houston precludes the idea of a "lack of choice" that you so vehemently cling to. My point was that you had the choice to go to another facility given that your child was not, in fact, bleeding profusely.

>>"Or is it that you simply despise non-vaxers SO MUCH, you WANT to see them forced into such “choices”, just as punishment for daring to differ with your view?? As if those “choices” were in any way logical or inevitable!"<<

What a totally wacko accusation - even for you Kimberly. Desperation seems to bring out the best in you. There really are a very small handful of anti-vaxers that I have ZERO respect for but I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as "despising" them.

>>"Sure. There, but equally or MORE unacceptable. My point."<<

Unacceptable to you does not mean that they were not there. Obviously, this calls into question which interests were really of top priority - convenience vs care. Going to another facility should not be an unacceptable choice given that your daugher's care/health was at stake. Your own unwillingness to consider other choices does not make those choices vanish. That's MY point.

>>"Really? Had I been a woman unwilling to have sex with a man who then decided to hold me hostage, not with a gun, but at the threat of losing my child or my child not getting the medical care she needed, deprived me of food, drink, outside communication, sleep, etc., while returning to pressure me every half hr or so over a 12 hr period, until I was unable to resist him, I would not be fair in terming the situation a RAPE??? Even considering I HAD the “choice” to risk my child’s health/custody and given the fact that I knew he was violating the law?? Get real. As an analogy, it is rather apt, imo."<<

It's not even close. You were NEVER physically threatened. It's nothing like rape and it's an insult to consider your situation on par with the unfortunate women who really have been raped.

>>"LOL! “as the doctor”. I said “as the non-vaxing PARENT”. I also have experience in such matters, remember? And I have never said that MY experience is typical, only that it HAPPENED, and should not be trivialized/mocked as you continue to do."<<

No, you describe the treatment of anti-vaxers in ERs as though it's the norm to have to "fight" and "withstand pressure" and "be ridiculed", etc, etc, etc. I'm telling you from my perspective, anti-vaxers HAVE been treated expeditiously and "fairly" in ER settings in Texas despite the parent's views. I know - I've been there to see to it myself.

>>"No, I never went back down there and checked up on his “punishment”/stole his file, lol! I reported what I was told by the head of his department. As I said, being a doctor, she may have lied"<<

Like I said - how misleading that you claim "victory" based on the "punishment" the intern received without even knowing what happened.

>>"Oh PLEASE!!! You did it to ME not all that long ago, wrt a study you swore up and down NEVER stated what I posted it did. THEN, when I found the quote in the text of the study upon which my statement was justifiably based, you slammed me for “FINALLY” reading the whole thing! (without admitting the LIE you got caught in as a result of my doing so!) CLASSIC Eve. Still hazy? I can be much more specific, if you prefer. Again, SO typical of you to plead ignorance and demand “proof” while knowing full well the truth."<<

Link please. Excuse me if I don't trust your hazy version of what might have happened. Why do you think I even *mentioned* that I had not read the entire article? I was being nothing but honest and you took it as an opportunity to bash away - unjustifiably so.

>>"“nearly ALL”? Which ones, iyo, WERE coerced into a false choice? I know *I* was."<<

Yes, I have since finished reading the entire piece and there were very few who, in retrospect, felt they were "coerced" into vaccinating. The vast majority did, in fact, make a clear CHOICE to not vaccinate. The title of this thread does not reflect the fact that nearly ALL the people in the letter did, indeed, CHOOSE to not vaccinate.

>>"“We actually do”. YOU or WE? What? You know someone from there?;) Or just went to school there? LOL!

3rd generation myself, jftr."<<

I told you, my DD was born in San Antonio. My sister currently lives in Texas.

>>"Nothing “heavy handed” about calling you on your obvious insult to the intelligence of Texans (as was the context your “joke” was presented in; some crack about Texans not being expected to know the law/their rights, which I took to be a sincere opinion, despite the “joke“ you linked it to) and returning a small joke of my own, imo."<<

If you took that to be a sincere opinion, then there really is no further point in giving you any credit whatsoever in the future. Lighten up, it's more healthy for you.



>>"Oh, so you suspect deception? Which allows you to dismiss the facts as unsupported. That was easy, huh? I guess from now on, I shall have to demand other sources for all the links to stories from biased sources YOU post. Can’t just take them at face value or take the time to do my own research, can I?"<<

No, I think any newspaper type report of an incident ought to have *some* other source that corroborates the story. FYI, I *did* look for another source and, as I said, came up empty handed. Deception? Sure, maybe. Dismissed? Not at all. Feel free to demand whatever you want - that's never stopped you before, lol.

>>"If I said what I really thought of you/your comments, It would be deleted. Is THAT your goal? LOL! Fortunately, I think you can read my mind on this one"<<

How utterly sad. If you can't express your thoughts without being inappropriate or violating the guidelines, then that's simply not my problem now, is it? Come on, Kimberly, you're an adult - there really should be nothing in your way to respond as one.

Eve

 
 

Pages