Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I imaging it a safety thing and they are covering the bases to prevent any infections or diseases from spreading. Even my cat groomer won't take a cat who doesn't have it's rabies certificate.
Well, it would be more like your vet not taking animals who didn't get the rabies vaccine. If owners who had indoor cats for example decided that they were not in a high risk group and didn't want to give it to their cats and the vet said then I won't see you for anything if you won't. Goodbye forever. lol
Premise is the same:
Well, that is what I'm referring to as missing the big picture. Say, chemo meds are in short supply, and you have a woman who use to smoke but is now a mom and doesn't who has cancer. You also have a child or parent with cancer who never smoked a day in their life. Who gets the medicine when their is only enough for one of them? These are the kinds of events that happen because people don't look at the big picture.
What if you have someone who drinks beer, a lot maybe, maybe not but ends up needing a liver. You have someone who hasn't, needs the liver. What do you do. Then there is the unfortunate trickle down. The kid that needs chemo but who's parents smoked in the home. Then the kids who's parents didn't make a bad decision to smoke in the home. Who gets the meds if they are running out?
These are all real life scenarios. The same premise is used. It's endless. How can you make one decision like that without the other?
You are wrong if you think it doesn't all boil down to who the majority thinks deserves help. It does, and it can be scary. I won't participate. It's all or nothing for me. That is the big picture behind the choice to fire patients, or deny coverage, or help to those who have made bad decisions in their lives. Even if they've changed, it's always their with them.
I just don't agree with the premise on which to give or not give people care. Even if I am not the smoker, drinker, or anti vacciner. Maybe you don't understand where I'm coming from but that's ok, as long as choice still stands and people like you who don't think of the big picture don't start making it fact. It's ok if some doctor wants to choose patients but if it becomes a law then that is a problem. Things progress. That is what age has taught me.
Oh. my. gosh.
What you call "looking at the big picture" I call "drawing parallels where there are none."
You continue to ignore the fact that one of these things has an impact on society (not vaccinating), and the others do not.
Whatever. Last time I checked, obesity wasn't a communicable disease.
As long as you don't transmit your bad eating habits to your children I guess the doctors wouldn't have an issue with it but if you do there could be an issue if doctors are going to start firing patients or reporting them to child welfare when they see fit. I guess it depends on what doctor you go to and his ideas of good parenting and child care.
I'm not stupid enough to think that this attitude would stop at communicable diseases.
So glad my doctor is not only ok, but actually VERY supportive of my delaying/selective vaccinations.
When I was "shopping" for a pedi for my son, I saw a guy and he flat out told me he wouldnt allow me to do delayed vaccinations. Never went back in again Found my son's current pedi, and I couldnt be happier.
Well, it would be more like your vet not taking animals who didn't get the rabies vaccine. If owners who had indoor cats for example decided that they were not in a high risk group and didn't want to give it to their cats and the vet said then I won't see you for anything if you won't. Goodbye forever. lol
Our cat has to have the rabies shot to get his license--one would be fined without the license. The vet would report. I suppose you could keep the cat hidden and never take him to a vet.
A doctor, with the exception of human right violations, has the right to treat or not to treat. You have the right to go to him or not. That is freedom.
In a perfect world no one would smoke, no one would be overweight, or be in car accidents. This is real life, stuff happens, we can only make the decisions we think are right for our families, and doctors have to make decisions that are right for their practices.
As long as you don't transmit your bad eating habits to your children I guess the doctors wouldn't have an issue with it but if you do there could be an issue if doctors are going to start firing patients or reporting them to child welfare when they see fit. I guess it depends on what doctor you go to and his ideas of good parenting and child care.
I'm not stupid enough to think that this attitude would stop at communicable diseases.
Thank you for implying that I am stupid. Doctors are running a business. They can choose who they do business with and who they don't, just like any other business. I hope a doctor calls child welfare when they think there is a reason. I do believe they are required to by law. We aren't talking about the doctor or the govt. or anyone else trying to force a patient to do anything. We are talking about doctors looking out for the best interest of their patients, and their right to discontinue doing business with them if there is a difference of opinion. I don't see anything wrong with this "attitude". I don't see why a doctor should be required to continue working with someone who isn't cooperating. The doc is free to seek out patients who are on the same page as the practice, and the patient is free to seek out a doc who is on the same page as they are.
Our cat has to have the rabies shot to get his license--one would be fined without the license. The vet would report. I suppose you could keep the cat hidden and never take him to a vet.
A doctor, with the exception of human right violations, has the right to treat or not to treat. You have the right to go to him or not. That is freedom.
In a perfect world no one would smoke, no one would be overweight, or be in car accidents. This is real life, stuff happens, we can only make the decisions we think are right for our families, and doctors have to make decisions that are right for their practices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Found my son's current pedi, and I couldnt be happier.
Rabies vaccine mandatory in my state
Doctors are running a business. They can choose who they do business with and who they don't, just like any other business. I hope a doctor calls child welfare when they think there is a reason. I do believe they are required to by law. We aren't talking about the doctor or the govt. or anyone else trying to force a patient to do anything. We are talking about doctors looking out for the best interest of their patients, and their right to discontinue doing business with them if there is a difference of opinion. I don't see anything wrong with this "attitude". I don't see why a doctor should be required to continue working with someone who isn't cooperating. The doc is free to seek out patients who are on the same page as the practice, and the patient is free to seek out a doc who is on the same page as they are.