My advice is to fucking vaccinate your children
denying vaccines is dumb enough, but why the fuck would anyone opt to require consent for blood testing?
So nobody knows the mother is smoking meth.
While this is true to a point it is very fucked up that for job interviews and things like that they have to extract fluids from you and test them.
That SHOULD be against our 4th amendment rights in the USA.
For childbirth it's a bit different, because a child is involved. But I can't blame them for wanting consent for something that really shouldn't even be legal to do at all.
There are certain religions with stigma around blood. Not saying it’s a good reason but it’s not uncommon.
LOL true, i keep forgetting how fucking stupid religion is
Just talk to anyone who really believes in it and it will get your remembering again.
Everything should require consent. I’ve had too many medical “professionals” fuck things up.
I agree with you on this. We are supposed to have rights.
Yes, that sounds like something the NICU would lie about. "We didn't like them, so we didn't get their legal consent."
I read this as that they gave written, legal NON-consent, then verbally backtracked. The hospital had paperwork one way and none the other. Of course they followed the paperwork.
Presumably something about the Hospital having a fringe on the flag in the lobby had something to do with it.
Medical professional giving my two cents here: physicians and healthcare providers are allowed, and in some cases even required, to disregard the expressed, voiced, or even written wishes of the parent if the parent's wishes would endanger the child's life. The classic example is with Jehovah's Witnesses: if a child of a Jehovah's Witness is getting surgery or suffered an injury with significant blood loss, the child will be given life-saving blood transfusions irrespective of the parents' religious beliefs or wishes.
This is not a breach of informed consent taken lightly, but physicians and other medical professionals will ignore what the parents did or did not consent to if it means that the child or vulnerable adult would die or suffer grievous harm otherwise.
The state knows what's best!
In this case, it's the medical ethics standards that have been discussed, litigated, and debated to hell and back before landing on the accepted standard. So it's the physicians, lawyers, ethics experts, legislators, and judicial system that agreed on what is best.
This is good news.
As annoying as sovcits are, we can't conflate them with people just asserting their rights.
It's reasonable to require consent before performing tests/procedures on your children. (Though I, personally, would trust the nursing staff and doctors more than this.)
The behavior here is a hint of terrible sovcit / antivax shit, but it hasn't crossed the line yet, and shouldn't (alone) require CPS yet.
I'm pretty sure sovcit did many other things they aren't telling us about to attract CPS.
Agreed. Just saying that what we can see should be allowed.
i wouldn't assume the best of CPS. in my work, i see many families who are dealing with CPS, and it is often an unjust shitshow for families.
the notion that an agency should exist to protect the interests of vulnerable people is obviously a good one. in practice, many workers are undereducated, overworked, often lacking professionalism, and empowered by the state to enact bias against families and family members who may also be vulnerable.
cps, unfortunately, should be viewed in context of our country's history of criminalizing and victimizing minorities (people of color, people experiencing poverty, women and sexual minorities). they do some good work. they also hurt a lot of people they should not, including children.
I absolutely agree, but something I hope helps these kids of right wing extremists.
Fuck that children are not property
So you are saying hospitals should be able to do what ever they want without consent?
Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
It is reasonable to have to get consent before running tests or injecting something.
Side note I do believe if people want to go to public school they should have to get vaccinated, unless a doctor can reasonably state in a particular case it would be a bad idea for one particular person (health reasons).
I think sovcit idiots need their heads checked.
It should be 100% illegal to deny children basic healthcare like vaccines without medical necessity. I can't believe I have to type that out, but here we are, I guess.
And you are missing what I was trying to say. The point of the person you were initially responding to and my point is the consent part. Should people be given the vaccines of course. Should people have the blood test of course. But there’s still something called consent.
Let me give an example of what I’m talking about of how doctors and the medical community have gone off the rails. There is a lady I know of. She said yes she wants her kid to be vaccinated, but she wanted to spread out the vaccines not over years that would be ridiculous. But maybe have the first one done on the current visit or the current visit. And then maybe the next one or two on the next visit. Or possibly in every other visit but she would still get them but just go at a slower pace. The doctors blatantly accused her of being Anti-vaccine where in that statement is she anti-vaccine? Why did she want to spread out over a slightly longer period of time I’m not talking years just a slightly longer period of time? I don’t know, but you know what I guess. It’s not really relevant. the kid would still get them. it just might take a few more months or something to get them. Is that really that big of a deal? Yet the doctors blatantly called her anti-VAX.
People should always have the right to have a say in their medical treatment.
And that’s the point that person you were responding to and also my point is called consent. For some reason too many people look at doctors and say that well they know everything. They’re the doctors so therefore we should just blindly listen to what they’re saying.
Again, I’m not anti-VAX I do believe everybody should be vaccinated and I honestly believe that to get into a public school you should be vaccinated., Unless there’s a serious medical reason to not get the vaccine.
Same way with blood tests, they should be done. But they should be done with consent. We should not live in a society where you have no say whatsoever.
The problem with the "delayed" vaccination schedule is that then you get un- or under-immunized babies in daycare because the maternity/paternity leave runs out and the kid has to go to daycare. The way the vaccination schedules are currently implemented are done so to provide the best protection for the child on a timeline that would match up with the physiologic development of their immune system, the loss of immunoglobulin transfer from breast milk, and the exposure to more pathogens in environments outside the home.
let me preface my statement by clarifying i am definitely NOT anti-vax. and like the poster you are addressing, i agree that the needs of people in public education/care settings are important and it is good to require vaccination for participation.
to me, where a parent has concerns about the pace of vaccinations, a medical provider can share information with that person to help them better understand the risks and benefits of the typical schedule (as you have done). they should still have the opportunity to consent.
medical care without consent is a violation of bodily autonomy.
edit - i wonder if i was downvoted for a) i endorse vaccination as a benefit to the public, b) i think education is valuable in addressing fear or conspiratorial thinking, or c) i believe people have a right to bodily autonomy.
or was it d) i expressed these things instead of dogpiling the sovcit? 🤔
The issue is that we do provide education and try to have these conversations, but the information is also available in layman's terms from reputable organizations like the CDC. It all falls on deaf ears though. There is no evidence that shows any benefit for a delayed vaccination schedule with just a tiny number of exceptions for rare immune disorders. The other part of it is that it can become a burden on the clinic to deal with a bunch of extra appointments and having to fill out all the paperwork for the school/daycare explaining why the under/un-immunized child should be allowed in school anyways...and when you see 20 patients a day in the office and have another couple dozen phone calls, messages, and consults to deal with every day as well, spending the time to convince someone to accept scientific consensus in the place of the facebook posts they read is a tall order.
i hear you, you are expected to do an unrealistic amount of work. i believe you, data does not support a delayed schedule for most.
i continue to support the need to obtain patient consent to protect bodily autonomy.
i am not foolish enough to believe i have an easy solution to the difficulties inherent in that conflict given the shortcomings of healthcare systems.
What you have described is form of anti vax conspiracy. The "vaccine schedule" nonsense is one of the ways they pull people like you into the fold. You are literally demonstrating how this process works and why it is so dangerous.
I will say it again. Children are not property. Using them as a way to manifest insane medical conspiracies is not a protected right. Every child should be vaccinated.
But since vaccination is considered a medical procedure, you cannot give a vaccine without informed consent. In this case it's the parent's consent because the child is incapable of giving informed consent. There is plenty of case law stating that medical practitioners cannot perform medical procedures if the patient has withdrawn consent despite the best of intentions and practices. It's ultimately not up to the healthcare provider except in very specific cases, and vaccination is not one of those.
Clearly the state should decide what to do with them.
children are not property, but consent is also important.
Not saying that I agree or disagree, but why does the parents consent matter?
Parental consent is usually used as a substitute where a child is too young to give consent for a procedure. In Australia and the UK once a child is able to understand the procedure and associated risks they are considered "Gillick competent" and their consent outweighs the parent's, but until then the parent is the one who gives consent on the child's behalf. Parental consent is also used as a substitute when the child is incapacitated by injury or illness such that they are incapable of giving informed consent. Health practitioners and first aiders can also assume consent in life-threatening situations where the patient is incapable of giving consent (e.g. giving CPR to someone in cardiac arrest).
If someone in the maternity ward had come up to me after my daughter was born and asked me if I consented to a blood test, I'd think it was a really weird thing to ask consent for, which is probably why no one asked as far as I remember (maybe it was buried in a bunch of legalese or something). Has a baby ever suffered any sort of grievous harm from a blood test? It's like asking for consent to wash the kid after it's born. No one asked us for consent to do that either, which is probably good because neither of us were exactly in the right mind to think about such things what with me seeing something with 50% of my DNA coming out of my wife's body and her suffering through something with 50% of her DNA coming out of her body.
this parent did not find it weird to be asked, because that's what they wanted. they requested that staff seek their consent before providing care.
Can someone help with my reading comprehension here? The person had a letter to deny healthcare for the children but said yes to healthcare for themselves?
At first I read it as the person gave them the letter saying no re healthcare for children, but when asked verbally said yes for the same.
That's what seems to have happened yeah.
it looks like this person wanted to be consulted before any care/treatment was provided to their children. when asked, they agreed to suggested care.
it looks like there is an error in their post. i do not read their statement to mean they accepted care for their own self and not for their children.
But if they agreed to the suggested care in the end, why were child protective services called?
the letter doesn't say, and the reporter may or may not have had good reason. we don't know based on the information provided.
the fact that a report was made does not inherently mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone reported concern. the fact that the report is being investigated does not mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone with CPS agreed to open a case based on what they were told.
i could call CPS and say that you are abusing a child or other vulnerable person, provide enough information about you and a plausible concern (in theory at least, whether it's based in fact or not), and CPS could choose to follow up on that report. i can make this report and they can investigate regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of abuse or neglect.
One consistent thing about sovcit garbage is their ability to leave out relevant things when talking about how much a victim they are. I'm sure there is more to their actions than what is described that lead the hospital staff to alert CPS.
Edit: My personal experience with a NICU makes this response no surprise at all. My son was premature and while we were there the father of a teenage girl who had a baby there came in to the NICU and started getting loud about unplugging the baby. He was quickly escorted out by Hospital security and arrested. They take no chances in that kind of environment.
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
