I’m a big fan of vaccination. It has saved billions of lives. But no vaccine is perfect, so let me present the following scenario:
Janet is a young girl and of the right age to receive Vaccine X. However, Janet’s elder sibling received Vaccine X and had a fatal reaction to it. Both parents do not want Janet to receive the vaccine; the doctor, citing statistics, wants to give Janet the vaccine. How say you? Should the doctor respect their choice?
Does the doctor have the legal right to disrespect their choice?
Are you asking if the Doctor should give the child the vaccine without consent?
I think you are phrasing this rather unfortunately. Should the doctor respect their choice? Absolutely. Should s/he try and convince them that the probability of another of their children having the same reaction is most likely very low? If that’s the case and it wasn’t a genetic predisposition or something along those lines then certainly the doctor should point that out and encourage the parents to get their child immunized, explaining to them why it’s important and the ramifications of not vaccinating both to their child and to society as a whole. The parents might still be unconvinced, and I’d certainly understand if they weren’t even if I didn’t agree…but then, I have never had a child lost due to a bad reaction to a vaccine, so hard for me to say how I’d react. I know, intellectually how I’d react, but emotion is difficult to gauge in such a case.
Rare, demonstrated fatal reactions to a vaccine, are already a reason to not give vaccines to kids.
So, Logic tell us that the OP is referring to a false dilemma.
It should be possible to test the girl for a reaction with a teeny amount of vaccine (or put it on the skin or test in a petri dish…I am sure they can figure it out) to see if there is a reaction that would fall well short of killing/harming her.
Choose based on how that goes.
That is a rare enough occurrence that it could be considered to be a medical reason for opting out. If it is not possible to determine that Janet does not have the same susceptibility, then it would be prudent to skip the vaccination. If it is something that can be tested for, then they should proceed with the test and vaccinate based on the test.
The reason that it is important to have a high level of vaccination is specifically for cases like Janet’s where she may not be able to safely receive the vaccination. She will be safe against the disease, as long as a high number of her peers don’t decide to opt out based on emotional reasoning, rather than an actual medical reason.
Now, if your question is, after determining that Janet is not susceptible to the vaccine in the way her sister was, if the parent still just don’t feel good about it, should society allow them to opt out? That’s a fair question, and as the occurrences of such a situation would be so exceedingly rare, then an exception could be made. I would support a public policy that if any of your children have died due to a vaccine, then you may opt out of having your other children vaccinated. It would still be stupid, as you are putting your own kid at risk to contract the disease unnecessarily, but it would be rare enough that you are not posing a danger to the public by acting on your irrational and ignorant choices.
Parents, by their nature of being parents and not doctors, are one of the least qualified people on the planet to determine what is actually best for their child. Humoring them when it does no harm seems a good idea on the face of it, but often, they take it further until it does start causing harm.
Different hypothetical question for the OP. Janet’s sister had appendicitis, and during the operation to remove her appendix, something when wrong, and she died on the table. Now Janet’s appendix is all swollen up and close to bursting, but based on their experience with their their previous child, they do not want her to receive the surgery. Should the doctor respect their wishes?
The question is exactly as it is.
Then that’s all you need to say.
As I wrote in my OP ‘no vaccine is perfect’. And no, it’s not a false dilemma.
I’m pretty sure the law is 100% clear that doctors can’t go around forcing vaccinations on anyone, for good reasons or for bad. It doesn’t seem to me to be a difficult question, much less a dilemma.
In what way legally can the doctor “disrespect” the parent’s wishes? Can he give the vaccination against their wishes, or is he legally obligated to give the vaccination?
Sorry, the lawyers are on strike.
Sorry, but I thought we were dealing with a real world situation. Let us know what the laws are in the world of your hypothetical, please.
Are you trying to give us a version of the silly TV lawyer trope, “please answer the question yes or no”, where a witness is prohibited from clarifying their response even when just saying yes/no would be misleading?
Would you consider verbally pushing the parents to vaccinate to be “respecting” their choice?
It is because the solution was already cited. It remains a false dilemma for the ones that can not show that a kid will have an issue with a vaccine. In the OPs example what it’s a possible issue can be analysed with samples to see if someone will have the same problem as his/her sibling that had the issue beforehand.
Once the chances of a rejection or allergy are found, then the kid from the OP can be exempt from the vaccine as some are allowed. And that the case even before someone decided to scare people about vaccines.
If the vaccine has a tiny risk of a fatal reaction, then there will be few enough cases like this that not vaccinating siblings makes sense.
The OP has yet to explain in what way the doctor can disrespect their choice.
Real world chiming in here.
The physician always respects the parent’s choice, at least until the child is 18 and is allowed to decide for themselves. Don’t know about false dilemma as much as no dilemma at all.
We can of course respectfully try to get them to alter the choice if we feel such is appropriate, but the choice is theirs to make, even if it is a very stupid one.
But let’s make this real world interesting - some practices refuse to accept and kick out families that do not vaccinate and those who will do … creative … immunization schedules, refusing only a few. IF the alleged sibling reaction is not a listed contraindication to vaccination of the child in the office, should an office with that policy enforce it in this case?
A better question is what reasons would they have to justify getting a waiver of vaccination to enroll their kid in school. If it is a valid medical reason, sure. If it is a valid medical possibility, then why not.
If it is just because the parents are making the worst possible choice for their child out of ignorance, not so much.
Then the question is poorly framed. You need to explain what “disrespecting the parents’ wishes” means for anyone to answer the question. It sounds like you’re asking if the Dr should perform a physical assault on the child, since that’s what giving a vaccine without consent is doing. I’m pretty sure most reasonable people won’t advocate Drs assaulting patients.