I beg to differ. It is a simple question with, as Dseid has noted, and so it turns out, a simple answer. That you are trying to complicate matters bespeaks you, not the question.
Thanks.
Depends on what the vaccine is for. If it’s chickenpox or flu, leave it. If it’s a smallpox/polio style eradication campaign then jab her while the family’s distracted by the nurse.
You’ve dismissed several simple answers.
Different states have different rules.
Many allow “religious” or “philosophical” exemptions.
A simple question would have asked if doctors are required to obey a parents wishes when caring for an underage patient. There’s no need to bring vaccines into it. Instead you created a hypothetical and asked us what we thought the doctor should do. The answer to that question could easily be different than the law and/or accepted medical practice.
Which question would you like answered?
Because of herd immunity the child doesn’t need the vaccine. Mandating vaccinations is needed to cope with the million-sized mobs of anti-vaccine idiots, not a few rare cases of possible hereditary danger.
The sibling had a fatal reaction. The idea that we should trust a doctor or Google search that the reaction might not be genetic is absurd. OP didn’t write “Need answer fast” but:
Do not give the child the vaccine.
Some anti-vaxer thinks he’s constructed a Gotcha. It’s good to see only 2 Dopers in the thread so far have fallen for the wrong answer.
I’ll add one more thing - not “always” actually - the times that a doctor does not respect the parents’ decisions to withhold an action are when it is clear that such would be neglect and then the legal system needs to become involved. Refusing an immunization does not hit that bar.
Doctors should not have the automatic right to decide on matters of a child’s health. We can refuse to do things to be sure, but we cannot and should not be able to force an action over the parents’ objections without meeting a very high bar.
It’s still really unclear to me if the OP would consider anything short of force-vaccinating the child to meet the standards for “fail to respect”. It’s very ambiguous and I don’t know why the OP won’t clarify.
Doctor should respect parents, don’t give the vaccine. Risk outweighs the benefits.
True, I suppose there should have been an IMHO in there, as I do feel as though the religious exemption laws get abused by ignorant parents. As well as being of the secular notion that religious exemption laws are bad public policy in the first place.
I agree. The OP is very vague on what “respect” means. If respect means that he will not do it without their consent, then that’s the law and that’s the ethics nearly every doctor would follow.
If respect means agreeing with their decision, and not even trying to talk them out of it, then that’s a different matter.
If the doctor isn’t allowed to give the vaccine without the parents permission, then this is a false dilemma, period. Have there been accounts of doctors doing this?
True, however, it’s not hard to imagine a real or hypothetical nation in which a parent’s consent can legally overriden, which would more fit the spirit of the OP. In such a nation, the doctors should still heed the parents.
Or is the “spirit of the OP” more that a doctor who brings it up every visit, and tells them that in his professional opinion they are making a foolish, dangerous mistake, disrespecting them? I know a lot of people who would describe pressure in this context as “disrespectful”.
If you reread the thread you will see that I have not.
That’s a different question.
The OP is not a simple question with a simple answer. The exact circumstances are important.
If we’re talking about (for example) a non-mandated vaccine for a teenager and there is an actual documented example of a fatal reaction in a sibling (which of course would be an extremely rare occurrence), then I can’t see any physician having qualms about respecting parental wishes not to have their other child vaccinated. Even in California (where “philosophical” exemptions to vaccination have been eliminated), evidence-based medical exemptions are acceptable under the law, and docs who follow good medical practice wouldn’t hesitate to grant them.*
If on the other hand the family lives in another country where there’s a big outbreak of polio in the community and the sibling’s death was (despite the parents’ belief) not due to the vaccine, it may well be the physician’s responsibility to urge vaccination and even get the authorities involved if necessary.
*a questionable medical exemption is one factor that just got a prominent antivax pediatrician in California hit with serious sanctions by his state medical board.
Okay, so what is your question?
Is it “Do doctors follow the law?”
Then yes, yes they do.
[/thread]
Could you answer the question I asked? Is that “disrespecting them”?
Mary Somerville’s elder sister died in childhood. Their parents blamed studying mathematics for her death. They were fairly sure that was the cause. As a result, they didn’t allow Mary to study maths. Were they right to do so?
A tutor they hired to teach their sons maths also taught Mary maths, at some risk to himself (this was the 18th century - if he had been dismissed without references for going against their wishes he might have ended up dying of poverty). Was he right to do so?
There are significant differences, of course. Not studying maths wouldn’t have killed Mary Somerville or anyone else. Not being vaccinated might kill a child and/or other people. So the example I give is far less serious.
As for answering the question that I think the OP meant to ask, my position is the same as k9bfriender’s in post number 7.