Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
97. American Acad of Pediatrics March 2016 issue contains this article, simplistic memes notwithstanding
Thu May 19, 2016, 08:15 AM
May 2016
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/17/peds.2015-4230

Pediatrics
March 2016, VOLUME 137 / ISSUE 3


Childhood Vaccine Exemption Policy: The Case for a Less Restrictive Alternative

Douglas J. Opel, Matthew P. Kronman, Douglas S. Diekema, Edgar K. Marcuse, Jeffrey S. Duchin, Eric Kodish


Abbreviations: MV — measles vaccine, NME — nonmedical exemption, VPD — vaccine-preventable disease

Efforts to restrict parents’ ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful.

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4230
PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26993127

Published By American Academy of Pediatrics
Print ISSN 0031-4005
Online ISSN 1098-4275

Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Author Information: Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPHa,b, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, MSCEb, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b,c, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb, Jeffrey S. Duchin, MDd,e,f, and Eric Kodish, MDg

aTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, and
bDepartments of Pediatrics and
dMedicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington;
cDepartments of Health Services and
eEpidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington;
fCommunicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization Section, Public Health–Seattle and King County, Seattle, Washington; and
gDepartment of Bioethics, Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Dr Opel conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript; and Drs Kronman, Diekema, Marcuse, Duchin, and Kodish reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.



Oh dear! And the Blogosphere erupts. longship May 2016 #1
You can always tell from the bellowing whose ox was gored. nt GliderGuider May 2016 #2
Well, I rather like both PZ and Dr. Novella. longship May 2016 #3
Me too, and from what he wrote here, John Horgan seems like a good skeptic also. cpwm17 May 2016 #62
PZ is right. Deadshot May 2016 #6
They're both right. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #11
David Gorski now has a response, as well. HuckleB May 2016 #53
Well, Gorski is a breast cancer oncologist/surgeon. longship May 2016 #79
Not that troll David Gorski again! womanofthehills May 2016 #80
His blog is under Orac, but your second claim is just bizarre. HuckleB May 2016 #81
I think there is some projection going on here! womanofthehills May 2016 #84
No, you don't. HuckleB May 2016 #87
This message was self-deleted by its author HuckleB May 2016 #86
Thanks! ORAC nails it! longship May 2016 #83
Orac aka SoCalGal womanofthehills May 2016 #85
ORAC is Dr. David Gorski, an oncologist/surgeon, specializing in breast cancer. longship May 2016 #88
This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #4
^^That. Orrex May 2016 #7
+1 Johonny May 2016 #22
Brave fellow. nt bemildred May 2016 #5
I like Eisenstein's perspective GliderGuider May 2016 #8
Had to look up "monistic idealism". bemildred May 2016 #9
That's kind of old-hat, to be honest, and it reeks of pomo reductionism. Orrex May 2016 #12
A skeptic jumping on skeptics for their lack of skepticism fasttense May 2016 #10
Sorry, but alternative medicine can be dangerous. Oneironaut May 2016 #13
So can allopathic "white-coat" medicine. GliderGuider May 2016 #14
This argument is always brought out and it's meaningless. Oneironaut May 2016 #15
Either you're doing rational risk management or you're not. GliderGuider May 2016 #16
OK, here's a risk assessment for you, if you have a case of the shivers, or a mild cold... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #18
American Acad of Pediatrics March 2016 issue contains this article, simplistic memes notwithstanding proverbialwisdom May 2016 #97
So it's like that, eh? Orrex May 2016 #20
So alternative medicine patients are OK, but practitioners are not? GliderGuider May 2016 #23
That's several different questions Orrex May 2016 #25
OK, your positions all seem reasonable. GliderGuider May 2016 #27
Thanks. Incidentally, I should add... Orrex May 2016 #30
No objections on any of that. GliderGuider May 2016 #31
Yeah, that's another good one. Orrex May 2016 #32
The scientific method is what matters. Oneironaut May 2016 #21
To be fair, even science is suffering from a bit of a replication crisis. GliderGuider May 2016 #33
Because there are flaws in the scientific method doesn't mean it should be ignored. Oneironaut May 2016 #34
I said be skeptical, not ignore it. nt GliderGuider May 2016 #35
The argument still makes no sense Oneironaut May 2016 #37
The replicability crisis is unique to science. GliderGuider May 2016 #38
The reason alternative medication doesn't have this crisis is that Oneironaut May 2016 #59
alt.med is accepted uncritically by its believers GliderGuider May 2016 #73
That means that alt. med is useless Oneironaut May 2016 #91
That's medical malpractice, where as alternative "medicine" doesn't even rise to the level of... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #17
How many lives do they save? whatthehey May 2016 #24
I really need to start putting people who use "allopathic" on ignore MattBaggins May 2016 #36
Rather than finding out what they actually think? nt GliderGuider May 2016 #39
If they use silly terms like allopathic, no MattBaggins May 2016 #42
Until you brought it up, I didn't even realize the term was pejorative. GliderGuider May 2016 #45
With respect, your statement is dishonest Orrex May 2016 #94
medical errors 3rd leading cause of death in us - John Hopkins study womanofthehills May 2016 #82
True, and also an irrelevant point. Oneironaut May 2016 #92
There's a reason they're soft targets. Iggo May 2016 #19
+1 Marr May 2016 #29
sorry but as someone who has lost a mother and grandmother to breast cancer I will never liberal_at_heart May 2016 #26
I don't think anyone is asking you to advocate for less screening. GliderGuider May 2016 #28
It's important to consider the evidence, regardless of emotion. alarimer May 2016 #41
You can prefer whatever you want. I don't care. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #43
But think about the hell treatment put them through: why do that to well women? LeftyMom May 2016 #47
All I know is my daughter has about a thousand times better chance of surviving than my liberal_at_heart May 2016 #48
That's not actually true. LeftyMom May 2016 #49
Well I had a preventative double mastectomy when I was 29. I am now 40. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #50
I think many draw the wrong conclusions zipplewrath May 2016 #52
Well of course we need better screening. No one is arguing that. We especially need liberal_at_heart May 2016 #54
More accurate zipplewrath May 2016 #63
Yes opiods cause much harm and yes we need better pain management and we need to liberal_at_heart May 2016 #66
Profit in far too much of this zipplewrath May 2016 #69
Oh, I agree. I am glad to see some doctors refusing to prescribe some cancer liberal_at_heart May 2016 #71
You should be zipplewrath May 2016 #77
As long as you gave informed consent? I'm totally in favor of having that option. LeftyMom May 2016 #56
My daughter is young and has dense breast tissue so she gets digital mammograms. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #58
One, it's not bashing to think critically about these issues. alarimer May 2016 #40
right, there's no use building up a culture war: the CSICOP types are locked into this MisterP May 2016 #44
Interesting comment. GliderGuider May 2016 #46
EXACTLY! nt villager May 2016 #51
All ideologies suck, the scientific included. Life is a messy business, the universe is very big... hunter May 2016 #55
Exactly so. Nt GliderGuider May 2016 #57
There is an authoritarian element among the "skeptics" that accept BS, cpwm17 May 2016 #60
Smackdown! rug May 2016 #61
They are right about religion; it is a delusion. alarimer May 2016 #65
If they think religion is a delusion, they know as little about delusions as they do about religion. rug May 2016 #67
ever note how the only two groups that say there's an irreconcilable difference between religion MisterP May 2016 #72
Yup. They also share a literal reading of scriptures. rug May 2016 #74
I blame the Methodists MisterP May 2016 #75
That's just because Hillary's a Methodist. rug May 2016 #76
BTW, while I'm pro-vax, my wife is anti. GliderGuider May 2016 #64
Good for your wife! CanSocDem May 2016 #78
this seems apropos MisterP May 2016 #89
The Guardians of Orthodoxy strike! GliderGuider May 2016 #90
Upthread you were doing better. Orrex May 2016 #93
Upthread I also said this: GliderGuider May 2016 #98
Well, that was an early weak point. Orrex May 2016 #100
Believe what you wish. GliderGuider May 2016 #101
It's not a matter of belief--it's demonstrable fact. Orrex May 2016 #102
I meant believe what you wish about me and my motivations. GliderGuider May 2016 #103
I make an effort to "believe" as little as possible. Orrex May 2016 #104
As I said above, I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic GliderGuider May 2016 #106
Curiously, you seem pointedly non-skeptical about alt-med Orrex May 2016 #107
Can you point to an example of me being pointedly non-skeptical? GliderGuider May 2016 #108
Seriously? Orrex May 2016 #109
I did yesterday, too. HuckleB May 2016 #110
Since you bring it up, in the interests of transparency here's how our conversation unfolded: GliderGuider May 2016 #112
That's what it takes for you to participate in discussion fully and honestly? HuckleB May 2016 #114
This wasn't actually a discussion. It was an attempted mugging. GliderGuider May 2016 #115
Wow. HuckleB May 2016 #116
Gladly. Consider yourself cut. nt GliderGuider May 2016 #117
How is it that you missed the fact that I've already checked out... HuckleB May 2016 #118
Skepticism has an even bigger problem with misogyny. alarimer May 2016 #68
It does seem like that has been ignored since it first hit, for the most part. HuckleB May 2016 #70
Thank you. Very, very much. n/t OneGrassRoot May 2016 #95
Yeah, professional asshole Richard Dawkins is a repeat offender in that regard Orrex May 2016 #105
Ha! I was thinking about posting this here... OneGrassRoot May 2016 #96
You're welcome! GliderGuider May 2016 #99
Excellent share! Thanks, GliderGuider! drokhole May 2016 #111
Thanks for the links. GliderGuider May 2016 #113
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scientific American: Bash...»Reply #97