Doctors not seeing kids withot vaccinations — Page 4

adywan said:

One thing that makes me sick with some parents now is that they will have "sickness parties". If one child gets chicken pox (yes i know this isn't part of the vaccinations unless its changed since my children were young), measles, mumps etc these parents  will gather all their children together and have these so called parties in the hope that all their children will also get whichever illness the one child has so they can get it earlier in life, instead of getting any of the vaccinations. Now this has become acceptable without any regard for the safety of their children or anyone elses.

oh my God. 

adywan said:

Doctors and hospitals here are refusing to treat people that smoke or are overweight,

well I guess I'm f___ed cause I am overweight.   better hope I don't need medical treatment.   *cries*

well, I guess I'll never be visiting the UK,  I'm not going to risk dying there cause I can't get medical treatment if needed.  

Do everyone now see where refusing to treat unvaccinated kids can lead?   Do we really want doctors and hospitals deciding that there are certain groups of people that should be refused treatment?

Slippery slope argument.  I don't buy it.

And they already decide, don't they?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

adywan said:

One thing that makes me sick with some parents now is that they will have "sickness parties". If one child gets chicken pox (yes i know this isn't part of the vaccinations unless its changed since my children were young), measles, mumps etc these parents  will gather all their children together and have these so called parties in the hope that all their children will also get whichever illness the one child has so they can get it earlier in life, instead of getting any of the vaccinations. Now this has become acceptable without any regard for the safety of their children or anyone elses.

 I'm not sure these are new. My mom took my to these when I was little, since chicken pox is so much less dangerous when you're young. I have a friend whose wife was hospitalized from adult chicken pox. Before the chickenpox vaccine was developed, these parties seem to have made a lot of sense.

I think the chicken pox vaccine only dates from the late 90s (I could be wrong). The MMR vaccine predates that a lot, so I can't imagine why people would have a 'party' for mumps or measles.

Warbler said:

well, I guess I'll never be visiting the UK,  I'm not going to risk dying there cause I can't get medical treatment if needed.  

Do everyone now see where refusing to treat unvaccinated kids can lead?   Do we really want doctors and hospitals deciding that there are certain groups of people that should be refused treatment?

Yeah Warb, but that's ENGLAND. They still have a king, and have to pay taxes on tea.

TV's Frink said:

Slippery slope argument.  I don't buy it.

And they already decide, don't they?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

 What a bunch of a******s.

TheBoost said:

 I believe there are extensive rules about under what conditions a doctor can refuse to see a patient. Much of it falls under the same laws that dictate that a restaurant owner can't keep all the colored folk out.

 My understanding was wrong. Apparently a doctor can use his power to enforce his religious morallity on others.

As long as the other is a woman.

I doubt a Jehovah's Witness doctor would be allowed to refuse to perform a blood transfusion (against his religion).

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

well, I guess I'll never be visiting the UK,  I'm not going to risk dying there cause I can't get medical treatment if needed.  

Do everyone now see where refusing to treat unvaccinated kids can lead?   Do we really want doctors and hospitals deciding that there are certain groups of people that should be refused treatment?

Yeah Warb, but that's ENGLAND. They still have a king, and have to pay taxes on tea.

um, at the moment they have Queen and if I am not mistaken, the Queen is only a figurehead.   The real power in England rests with the ELECTED Parliament.

TheBoost said:

TheBoost said:

 I believe there are extensive rules about under what conditions a doctor can refuse to see a patient. Much of it falls under the same laws that dictate that a restaurant owner can't keep all the colored folk out.

 My understanding was wrong. Apparently a doctor can use his power to enforce his religious morallity on others.

As long as the other is a woman.

If it makes you feel any better, these things can affect the man in the woman's life as well...

Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

well, I guess I'll never be visiting the UK,  I'm not going to risk dying there cause I can't get medical treatment if needed.  

Do everyone now see where refusing to treat unvaccinated kids can lead?   Do we really want doctors and hospitals deciding that there are certain groups of people that should be refused treatment?

Yeah Warb, but that's ENGLAND. They still have a king, and have to pay taxes on tea.

um, at the moment they have Queen and if I am not mistaken, the Queen is only a figurehead.   The real power in England rests with the ELECTED Parliament.

Pretty sure that was a joke.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Yeah Warb, but that's ENGLAND. They still have a king, and have to pay taxes on tea.

um, at the moment they have Queen and if I am not mistaken, the Queen is only a figurehead.   The real power in England rests with the ELECTED Parliament.

 That's just what King George wants you to think. You sound like a torrie!

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

Slippery slope argument.  I don't buy it.

And they already decide, don't they?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

 What a bunch of a******s.

difficult situation.    If you truly believed that the fetus from conception on was a human life equal to that of any other human already out of the womb, with just as much right live,  would you not think that the morning after pill is murder?   Would you possibly assist with something you believed to be murder?   I am assuming in all of this that what this morning after pill does is kill the embryo 

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Yeah Warb, but that's ENGLAND. They still have a king, and have to pay taxes on tea.

um, at the moment they have Queen and if I am not mistaken, the Queen is only a figurehead.   The real power in England rests with the ELECTED Parliament.

 That's just what King George wants you to think. You sound like a torrie!

King George?  a torrie?

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

Slippery slope argument.  I don't buy it.

And they already decide, don't they?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

 What a bunch of a******s.

difficult situation.    If you truly believed that the fetus from conception on was a human life equal to that of any other human already out of the womb, with just as much right live,  would you not think that the morning after pill is murder?   Would you possibly assist with something you believed to be murder?   I am assuming in all of this that what this morning after pill does is kill the embryo 

She was raped.  And equating an embryo to an even partially developed fetus makes no sense to me.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

  If you truly believed that the fetus from conception on was a human life equal to that of any other human already out of the womb, with just as much right live,  would you not think that the morning after pill is murder?   Would you possibly assist with something you believed to be murder?   I am assuming in all of this that what this morning after pill does is kill the embryo 

And equating an embryo to an even partially developed fetus makes no sense to me.

 The EC "Morning After" pill prevents a potentially fertilized egg from even implanting on the uterus.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

Slippery slope argument.  I don't buy it.

And they already decide, don't they?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

 What a bunch of a******s.

difficult situation.    If you truly believed that the fetus from conception on was a human life equal to that of any other human already out of the womb, with just as much right live,  would you not think that the morning after pill is murder?   Would you possibly assist with something you believed to be murder?   I am assuming in all of this that what this morning after pill does is kill the embryo 

She was raped.  And equating an embryo to an even partially developed fetus makes no sense to me.

it may make no sense to you, but to some life begins immediately when sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell. 

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

  If you truly believed that the fetus from conception on was a human life equal to that of any other human already out of the womb, with just as much right live,  would you not think that the morning after pill is murder?   Would you possibly assist with something you believed to be murder?   I am assuming in all of this that what this morning after pill does is kill the embryo 

And equating an embryo to an even partially developed fetus makes no sense to me.

 The EC "Morning After" pill prevents a potentially fertilized egg from even implanting on the uterus.

exactly, AFTER the egg has been fertilized.   AFTER, in the opinion of many people, life has begun.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

She was raped.  And equating an embryo to an even partially developed fetus makes no sense to me.

it may make no sense to you, but to some life begins immediately when sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell. 

TheBoost said:

 The EC "Morning After" pill prevents a potentially fertilized egg from even implanting on the uterus.

exactly, AFTER the egg has been fertilized.   AFTER, in the opinion of many people, life has begun.

 I wasn't offering an opinion. Just a clarification on what an EC pill does.

It seems to me there are lots of branches of medicine one can get into that wouldn't clash with someones Christian beleifs. An anathesiaologist or optomologist would never have to feel these terrible conflicts.

If a medical student puts a great deal of time and effort in specializing in reproductive medicine or gynocology, and has religious views that will interfere with a large portion of their job, I can't shake the feeling they must get a nice little righteous tingle everytime they get to use their power to put one of these fallen women in their place.

that is possible, I don't know.

Life begins before the fetus has a brain or a heart?  Does that mean when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working, you're still alive?

Ask a zombie.  Well, a live one, anyway.

...

That makes no sense.  Never mind.

ChainsawAsh said:

Life begins before the fetus has a brain or a heart?  Does that mean when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working, you're still alive?

good point.   I never said that I personally believe that life begins at conception, only that some do.   I personally am very unsure exactly when life begins.  

What about deer?  Is a deer's life worth less than a just-fertilized embryo?

...

Oops, I forgot we were talking about kids withot vaccinations.

TV's Frink said:

What about deer?  Is a deer's life worth less than a just-fertilized embryo?

 

it depends on what kind of embryo you are talking about?   Are you comparing the life of a deer to a deer embryo or the life of a deer to a human embryo?

Life of deer to human embryo.