WebMD Community Talk Show

It's completely fair. A doctor has to treat their patients to the best of their ability, and if the patient (or guardian) is noncompliant, the doctor cannot give their best care. As such, it makes the doctor useless.

Why would a doctor want to continue to see a patient to whom they are useless? Why would a patient (or patients guardian) want to be seen by a doctor whose values were not the same as their own? I'm not saying they have to be personally similar, but a doctor and patient need to see eye-to-eye on health, and if they don't their relationship won't be as beneficial for both parties.

What is there to be fair about? I was under the impression that healthcare was a business.

If a patient is not willing to follow their doctor's reccomendations then why go see the doc in the first place? If the doctor recommends something that s/he considers essential to good healthcare and the patient does not wish to comply why should the doctor put her/himself at risk of being sued for malpractice for bad results if their instructions were only partially followed?

My doctor is unlikely to fire me because I trust him implicitly ... and he knows that. We also take the time to discuss treatment... and we both talk and we both listen.

I am actually appalled by the number of people who trust online hearsay more than their own doctor. Wake up, people! If you have no faith in your doctor then find another! Don't just accept things and go searching online for the means of catching her/him out!
A doctor/patient relationship is one of TRUST. If you don't trust yours then find one that you DO trust.

There may be religious views and other reasons a parent may want to NOT vaccinate there child (example: my cousin has opsoclonus myclonous syndrome OMS. If he was to have a vaccine he would get very ill to say the least) and personally I think Doctor's these day's need to be put in check and I believe that if a Doctor doesn't do his job doesn't help his patients (just collecting money ) and discharging patients and only treating easy ones then they should be boycotted ( no Pickett signs or lock ins, simply quit going there and get the word out on how that doctor is, so he knows what it feels like to be rejected.)
also vaccines can have bad reactions on certain people including injury and death in some less common instances
The Doctors do it because they know they have another patient but if they know that they could lose more than just one patient then maybe just maybe a few Doctors will change how they practice, and most good Doctors that don't do this will get WAY more business "witch they deserve for being a good Doctor"

So no I don't think its right, I think its better for the Doctor to explain the risks of not doing it and try and understand the patient (and wishes) and not be the parent and refuse patients that don't do it and impose his/her rights on to them. Instead monitor the patient and ensure they are healthy

one thing I do not agree with is forcing Patients to do it or forcing Doctors to keep patients I believe that is against what this country is made on, but that doesn't mean that patients can't retaliate "peacefully" and find a Doctor that will take them seriously

It's about freedom, liberty and justice for all, right ?

Hi Olivia
I had to part ways with a doctor because I wasn;t willing to take a med he wanted me to take . so he said he couldn;t treat me anymore i said OK by by.
It was an after breast cancer drug supposed to help you avoid a reoccurance in the 5 years after surgery and radiation
I did try to take the pills but it was makeing me sick I looked up the drug to find out more about it and the side effects were more dangerous than the benifit in my mind so I opted for a better quality of life I am 5 years post surgery and doing fine . clean mammograms for the last 5 years
Hugs Judy:)

I do not think it is right at all. A patient has a right to refuse any oor all treatments from their doctors. For instance, chemotherapy for cancer. A patient might have a lot of personal reasons not to accept chemo. But the doctor can RX meds to keep a terminal patient comfortable. It should not be forced on unwilling patients.

My late husband died of cancer. When it was diagnosed, his team of doctors told him IN FRONT OF ME that he could take chemo or not, it wouldnt make much difference. They insisted that he had a right to change his mind any time and take it or not. Well, when it had advanced and he needed strong pain meds, THEN THE DOCS INSISTED THAT HE COME TO THE HOSPITAL AND TAKE BOTH CHEMO AND RADIATION OR THEY WOULD NOT GIVE HIM ANY PAIN MEDS. That was a 3 hour drive each way. Then when I told our personal doctor about what they told us, THEY LIED to him and claimed they did not say any such thing. I am the one who talked to them on the phone, and that is what they told me. Our local doc could not RX him any pain meds because of a stupid inspector that suspended his license over some piddly dumb thing, so we had to sit in the ER for nearly 6 hours to get him pain meds. The ER docs & nurses were sitting on their rear ends eating and drinking coffee for over 4 of those hours, and doing nothing. There was a long line of patients waiting ahead of us who said they had been doing that the whole shift. The ONLY pain meds they gave him was Ibuprofen 800 mgs 3 x daily. Period. Their excuse was they did not want him to get "addicted" to pain meds. The cancer had spread into his vital organs and bones, and that was all they did. Well, there is a lot more, none of it any better. But a patient does have rights.

Sure, doctors would like more children to be vaccinated. However, there are many reasons that people do not want that. In Africa, the Bill and whats-her-name Gates foundation vaccinates children at GUNPOINT.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/131-african-children-vaccinated-at-gunpoint-do-bill-gates-and-paul-offit-approve/

There are many other websites that confirm this report. Look it up. It was against these families religious beliefs, but the Gate's do not care about that. I have no respect for them.

Many children are highly ALLERGIC to ingredients used to make vaccines. My baby brother could not have them because he was allergic to eggs. One bite nearly killed him.

I was "fired" by one doctor because he made up lies about me and then had the gall to kick me out when I confronted him. Well, I got much better doctors since then, so good riddance.

Thankfully, I now have some great doctors and they respect their patient's opinions on things.

Hooty

Forcing the public to be vaccinated or take take drugs they do not want is in my opinion, criminal.

I think patients should "fire" doctors who push it upon them.

Drugs are being forced upon the public like never before.

The question should be "Will patients fire their doctors?"

America is supposed to be a nation free from communism. As long as vaccines and other drugs are being forced on the public, we ain't free.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. Neither party has some obligation to maintain a relationship. Doctors and patients need to be on the same wavelength, especially family doctors. Also, doctors have a duty to protect all of their patients. In a pediatric practice, the doctors not only see children for routine check-ups but also have children with life threatening illnesses. Some these children cannot be vaccinated because of their illness and need to be protected via the herd theory. Bringing an unvaccinated child into such a situation could threaten the well-being of another child. You don't want to vaccinate your child fine. You should find a doctor who is in agreement with your medical beliefs. I would hope that our family doctor would "fire" any family that choose not to vaccinate, not that it is a direct threat to my family but because it antithetical to her practice and beliefs.

Our medical group did consider this at one time....we didn't want to take the shared risk of dealing with unimmunized children. We left the decision up to individual clinicians, but in the end we decided to keep and work with them. Most vaccine-refusers have been poisoned with misinformation, so it is up to us...over time....to educate them to make a more informed decision based on real scientific evidence. Very few have true religious objections, just unfounded fears.

Although it is a hassle for us, we will allow them to decelerate injections, only giving one at a time, even though we know that it does not make sense....multiple injections do not "overload" the immune system, nor do the vaccines contain all of those harmful additives everyone claims. And....none of them cause autism!

I really feel that medical providers are consultants, so they need to work WITH people who have fears and concerns, not throw them out on the street where they will be fodder for quacks.

Find another physician that respects my decisions - as long as it is not life threatening to my child/family.
The need for immunizations is well documented in the literature and required by law for admission to school etc, but parents should still be given the option to discuss openly and opt out if they are truly adverse to immunizing their children- but not without a clear understanding of all the consequences now and in the future.

But the whole point is that you can choose another doctor. Nobody's forcing you to see someone who doesn't have the same set of values that you have. Isn't that freedom of choice?

Totally, 100% agree with this.

Not sure whether it's right or wrong...but like the PP said, neither party has any obligation to keep that relationship.

As usual,

I have to agree with the Lovely Ladies of WebMD
(Alaska_Mommy and FCL)

Two parties are involved in medical service.

With that said,
If a doctor recommended my child be vaccinated and I was unfamiliar, I would ask for more information. If uncertain, I would say I'll have to check into it first. Then check with reputable online information like mayoclinic and webmd.

For an example, many question flu shots. After reading information on reputable sources, I get the flu shot each year.

I have encountered doctors who seem annoyed when their advice is questioned at all. While I've never had to, I would politely remind the doctor that his/her service is for payment and I am the customer. Further, I want complete assurance the recommended vaccination is in the best interest of my child.

Like I said, I've never had to.

But I did change dermatologists when one said that I should continue use of two steroids for a skin condition until it was completely cleared. The package insert said to use no more than two continuous weeks. In that case, I felt better proceeding as the drug developer recommended than my doctor. And I chose changing doctors instead of having what could have been a confrontational meeting.