Dr John Crippen
Be like the French.
Immunisation is voluntary.
All children have to go to school, by law.
If you don't send your child to school, you are breaking the law and can be imprisoned.
You can't go to school unless you have been immunised.
Sorted.
I'm writing something on this general area (not specifically medical or immunisation) for the Guardian at the moment, and the gist is that you're selling a product here - immunisation. You know that it's a fantastic product and a massive benefit to the consumer, but you've got to convince the customers (Betamax was a fantastic product).
No matter how satisfying it would be, you don't sell a product to anybody by arguing with them about religion. You sell it on its merits, and in general it is best to do so without getting yourself dragged into unrelated battles. If Katme keeps up this line of rubbish, the effect will be to reduce the influence of him and his medical association, which can only be a good thing (of course, if someone is repeatedly making false claims in public about medicine, this is surely the sort of thing that the GMC ought to be interested in).
But since we don't have anything like the French legal system here, it's unlikely that a massive use of state power for a forced immunisation program is going to be the best solution.
Of course, it's crazy not to immunise. But it's also crazy to put pig products in a vaccine that you intend to be universal. I'm Jewish, gladly had my children immunised, and know that meat products in vaccines don't - strictly speaking - contravene kashrut. It still made me shudder a bit though, to know that some vaccines contain meat, and particularly pork, products. And I'm not even religious, by anyone's standards - I just have the usual aversions for my cultural background. Getting rid of meat products from supposedly universal vaccines would go a long way to solving the problem.
And yes, there are always extremists in any religion who believe that belief alone will keep you healthy - but I expect the anti-vac lobby is disproportionately made up of believers in homeopathy rather than believers in Allah.
Of course, it's crazy not to immunise. But it's also crazy to put pig products in a vaccine that you intend to be universal. I'm Jewish, gladly had my children immunised, and know that meat products in vaccines don't - strictly speaking - contravene kashrut. It still made me shudder a bit though, to know that some vaccines contain meat, and particularly pork, products. And I'm not even religious, by anyone's standards - I just have the usual aversions for my cultural background. Getting rid of meat products from supposedly universal vaccines would go a long way to solving the problem.
And yes, there are always extremists in any religion who believe that belief alone will keep you healthy - but I expect the anti-vac lobby is disproportionately made up of believers in homeopathy rather than believers in Allah.
oops. seem to have posted twice.
p.s. the comments by the Iconoclast cited in the BritMeds were a real slur on Muslim doctors working in Britain, this guy doesn't represent them.
Yes, I thought so too. I was amazed that, judging from the comments, no one else seemed too bothered. Maybe they did not see it
John
Yehudit - from what I've read here in the comments, and on other blogs which Dr Crippen links to, the anti-vac lobby is made up of people worried their kid will get autism, or some kind of damage. It's not that they believe in homeopathy particularly, more that they are afraid of the jab.
dsquared - The problem is not as simple as selling immunisation as a good thing, because parents already know it's a good thing - in general. But at the back of their mind is the niggling doubt, "what if my child is the one that gets damaged by the vaccine? Better to not risk it, and instead rely on herd immunity. Yes, immunisation is good - for other kids."
It's almost the opposite problem to selling the Betamax. Betamax was great, but there was no point buying it because it wasn't commercially supported and no-one else was buying it. Whereas with immunisation, people think they can get away with not buying it, because everyone else already has.
As a historian and social commentator, Dr C is a fine GP.
Well,
If we ever have a global Jihad and have to resort to biological weapons, at least we'll know which ones to use.
AFAIK you can break kashrut, kosher or the sabbath if life is at stake. I would contend that immunisation is that important.
Don't know of any Jew, orthodox or not, who has refused a porcine heart valve.
A consultant friend in London was recently told by two jihab-wearing young female medical students that they would be unable to attend that morning's ward round because they had to go and pray. He was subsequently reprimanded by management for failing to understand that praying was more important than studying medicine or caring for the sick .
Off topic - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6293699.stm
John - would you be happy to supervise this unit?
Again slightly off topic but in my year at university there was a muslim woman, very devout, who asked if she could only treat woman and children. The university looked into this seriously and she had alot of support from (non clinical) staff. It was only ruled against because it was too hard to implement, not because it was wrong.
We have fought so long in this country for equality and integration of the sexes that I find the notion of separating men's and women's healthcare heartbreaking.
dsquared,
An immunisation/school attendance system like the French one operates in a number of states in the US, where of course the legal system is very much more like ours.
Yehudit:
King Kahled of Saudi Arabia was a diabetic. For many years (before human insulin could be 'manufactured') he was injected daily with porcine insulin. Didn't seem to be an issue...
same as jewish law - Islam permits medicines etc from usually forbidden animals if there is a genuine medical need. Like Yehudit I would like to see vaccines and medicines produced on a vegetarian/vegan basis where possible.
.... I've had more vegetarian patients refusing meds etc than I have had jewish or muslim pts refusing the same on the basis of animal ingredients.
As for separating male and female healthcare - most patients want to be treated in single sex bays which seems reasonable to me and most if offered the choice would like a gender specific doctor (working in obs and gynae as a female dr I see this a lot!)
Like the Bible, the Koran may well have been quite a good survival guide for the time in which it was written (sorry, delivered by angel). No doubt "breast is best" was good advice a 1,000 years ago as it is now.
I can't help thinking that if religous extremists want to forgo vaccination, Darwinism has an answer.
As for the Catholic church, this is just one more example of their institutionalised bigotry and its good to see them get short shrift from the bulk of the Government. Now if only Ruth Kelly would resign on principle...
Ultimately, both these examples serve to remind me that ancient superstitions are a poor tool for decision making in the modern world. I'm just grateful to live in one of the least religious countries in the world.
Finally, Smile, isn't the inevitable outcome of your approach that there will cease to be any male OB/GYN doctors at all?
incandenza ?my approach? did I say I agree? I do agree that if patients would prefer to be treated in single sex bays this is reasonable.. other than that its your imagination I'm afraid - I see good and bad points and have no definite opinion as yet. As a pt I would prefer to se a female dr. As a doctor I'll treat anyone who walks through my door (the Obs and gynae is a temp thing - I'm training as a GP)
Every time I see vaccines being talked about on TV the background "library footage" is either of sterile test tubes and needles or of chicken eggs. I had always assumed that chicken eggs were the only animal component.
What animal products are actually used in the standard childhood vaccines?
Forgive me if I am wrong but I was reasonably certain that the Koran does not say no alcohol. What it says is do not lose control.... under the influence of alcohol. I will have to dig out my copy and find the relevant passages (with a lot of help from friends). I would welcome clarification or rebuttal from someone in the know.
If that was a true statement then one could use it to kneecap bigots perhaps?
Incidentally, my boy had a reaction to his jabs recently. I was certain it was nothing nasty - but then I have a group mind of colleagues to ask. That reaction will not stop him getting the rest of his jabs.
Anecdotally, I have a friend who had a house officer when he was a reg who was the world's laziest human. Apparently, she was also supremely religious. When he told her to pick up her game and not, for example, take the Thursday and Friday off with no notice when she was on call (there was no known religious holiday those days) - she accused him of racism. He then got hauled over the coals, for telling off a dangerous, underperforming, constantly reminded, junior member who was under his direct responsibility.
This one very junior doctor gave a bad name to her religion by using it as an excuse. But this one case is no way reflective of Moslem doctors the UK over. I know a fair few atheists who have trouble getting out of bed on a sunny day for a half hour shift…..
Dr Sniper
Is it true that vacs have human tissue, pig tissue, and monkey tissue? Mr. Katme asserts that they all do, which is a laughably broad statement. Like Bob Dowling, I have always associated eggs with vaccines.
As for alcohol, the amount involved is very small. Much smaller than the amount in fruit juice, for instance.
that guy's voice was nice in the link you gave.
Dr Sniper; I believe you are correct. Imams in my part of east London have declared alcohol hand-rubs to be halal (permissible); one assumes the parallel can be drawn.
That said, Yehudit is quite right to point out that treatments for universal consumption (surely the whole formulary?) should be as universally acceptable as reasonably possible. It is sound public health policy, and sound economics, to do so.
All children do not need to go to school by law, home education is an option in the UK. It is relatively uncommon, most of the home eds I know are the hippy type as opposed to the stereotype of a US homeschooler who is a right wing religious fundamentalist.
Would the anti vaccine people be prepared to pull their kids from schools and home educate instead of having them vaccianted?
"Neither the present Pope nor his predecessor has taken a lead in trying to stop or even condemn such behaviour."
Quite wrong. Do some research.
"Be like the French.
Immunisation is voluntary.
All children have to go to school, by law.
If you don't send your child to school, you are breaking the law and can be imprisoned.
You can't go to school unless you have been immunised."
CATCH 22 rides again!
I'm not sure that immunisation should be a condition of entry to the country, or to schools, if it's not mandatory for people born here.
It's so difficult. People who remember what life was like before immunisations will vaccinate their kids to protect them from what they remember. After a couple of generations, the new parents don't remember the horrors of those diseases, and don't necessary feel thankful for immunisations or see how important they are. The threat is perceived to be gone, they have no experience of the consequences of not immunising... If immunity drops and people start to get ill, immunisation rates will rise again, I'm sure.
Some people will only learn the hard way.
How about striking this moron from your rolls? He's clearly incompetent as a physician (muslim or not).
When my son (now seventeen) was five years old and due for his MMR vaccine it was the height of the MMR/autism scare and we had second (and third and fourth thoughts) about having him vaccinated, we had conversations with our GP (whom we trust) and asked advice from friends who had children who had
been vaccinated. In the end we decided the best thing for him (and sod the herd) was to have him vaccinated. Same with his sister four years later though that was less of a decision. Compulsory vaccination is a non-starter if you want all children to be vaccinated then you have to do it by winning the argument not by trying compulsion. As a parent I wanted (still do) what is best for my children and I would want any doubts put to rest before I agree to anything no matter how many doctors think my concerns are misplaced.
As for this Muslim doctor he's a nut and can be ignored, I'm pretty certain the few Muslims I know will ignore him just as they ignore the likes of Abu Hamza.
Incandenza, a question for you, if there are sufficient female doctors willing to work in Obs does it truly matter if there are no male ones. This is one field at least where you can be certain that all the patients are going to be the same sex as the doctors.
Certainly TB immunisation should be compulsory.
I haven't noticed good islamic living reducing the spread of TB.
How purified I feel when I skid in a puddle of hoiked up blood-stained sputum.
SD
"Neither the present Pope nor his predecessor has taken a lead in trying to stop or even condemn such behaviour."
Quite wrong. Do some research.
Newton
++++++
Done it.
No stong stand. No proactive campaign to rid the church of these crimes. When did the RC church last report something like this to the police?
They have not covered themselves in glory on this one.
John
How about a proactive campaign from the BMA to stop physician sex crimes and endemic fraud. Why is that the only person who can judge a doctor is another doctor? There are many more doctors covicted on sex crime charges than priests. Do some research. The medical profession is the most fraudulent profession in the US. Google doctor fraud and there are many new instances each day. Kickbacks, over charging, charging for services never performed, drug dealing.
Shiny
"Incandenza, a question for you, if there are sufficient female doctors willing to work in Obs does it truly matter if there are no male ones. This is one field at least where you can be certain that all the patients are going to be the same sex as the doctors."
So are you suggesting that male doctors should be discriminated against in Obs & Gynae? If so, then all Muslim women should be dealt with by Muslim doctors only by exactly the same arguement.
I worked in a large general practice for 10 years and there was no female doctor. In that time, I never heard one complaint for a female patient about it, not one. I then moved to a practice with two female partners who are bombarded with all the "female" problems much to their chegrin!
Why should women, Muslims or anyone else for that matter (excepting politicians of course - sorry Mrs Hewitt)get any preferential treatment on the NHS?
When I see a gynaecologist, I want the best person for the job, male or female.
Hi Newton
Strong and contentious stuff. Let's look at it.
[How about a proactive campaign from the BMA to stop physician sex crimes and endemic fraud.]
Sure. Let us stop physician sex crimes. There have been some doctor paedophiles, and I hold no brief for them, that is for sure. But very few indeed compared to the RC church where paedophilia has been rife.
I don't know what you have in mind by "endemic fraud". Tell me more.
[Why is that the only person who can judge a doctor is another doctor?]
Not true. Doctors end up in court just like anyone else.
[There are many more doctors covicted on sex crime charges than priests. Do some research.]
I don't have figures on that. If you do, please quote them. It may be true for ALL sexual offences, but it is not for paedophilia. Most doctors are married. Most priests are not... and are therefore sexually repressed.
[The medical profession is the most fraudulent profession in the US. Google doctor fraud and there are many new instances each day. Kickbacks, over charging, charging for services never performed, drug dealing.]
I do not believe that. I believe that most US doctors, like most UK doctors are decent men and women trying their best to do a good job in circumstances that are often difficult. Of course there are one or two villains. There are in every walk of life.
John
John- try googling doctor fraud each day before breakfast and see how clean and caring your profession is. i made a mistake in saying it is the most fraudulent profession. it is actually the most fraudulent common profession. more than 10 % of 1.9 trillion american dollars are bilked yearly; mostly by physicians.
most reported priest crimes are historic and they are still outnumbered by present day physician crimes. once again- use your search engine.
What has overcharging in the US got to do with the ethics of UK doctors? NHS doctors don't charge on a case by case basis, so how can they claim fraudulently?
You won't get any facts from Newton. We hear garbage like that all the time. Unsubstantiated allegations.
Go to the OIG site for Medicare and Medicaid. OIG = Office of the Inspector General. Look at the entities excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Physicians are not the largest entitity, actually nurses are more frequent. Thing is, the exclusions, physicians and nurses, are most commonly for practice-related reasons. As in, they have lost their license for the usual reasons.
A doctor who loses his/her license is automatically excluded from Medicare/Medicaid. Also, if you fail to pay student loans, you are excluded while you are in arrears. Pay up, and you are right back in the system.
When you look for "program-related violations" as in fraud, physicians are in the minority. Now you find the major players are business entities and private (non-medical) individuals.
Doctors, even if they were so inclined, can rip-off "retail". One at a time. Only a business can rip-off "wholesale".
The only way you can get this multi-trillion-dollar "fraud" number is if you count fee disputes (doctor says high-level office visit and government says low-level office visit), or payment for medical services done if good faith but questionable indication.
That's not fraud the planet Earth, though it may be fraud on Newton's planet.
arf- google 'doctor fraud' and 'physician fraud'. try and tell me it's not happening on a big scale!
why are incorrect claims always overcharging and not undercharging?
It's not 'preferential treatment' to try to accommodate a woman's preference for a female doctor -- unless you believe that all female doctors are superior to their male counterparts. if anything it can be a disadvantage as the woman may have to wait longer to see the doctor of her choice.
No of course male doctors shouldn't be discriminated against (and I don't see that they are; plenty of people prefer a male doctor for one reason or another) but it isn't an unreasonable request in a non-emergency situation, and you certainly can't force someone to be treated or examined if they refuse. Personally I don't generally care about the doctor's gender, even for 'female problems', but I realise many people do, and even if their reasons seem irrational, why subject them to unnecessary discomfort and humiliation?
Dear Mr Arf (that actually is pretty similiar to Alf- sure you aren't from another planet also), I am afraid I am going to regard your arguments as 'garbage' until you provide empirical evidence. I have been around long enough to know that they need to add another line to the hippocratic oath. Something like: "Thou shall not rort medicaid and/or medicare." Good night sweet prince.
Newton - what have medicare and medicaid got to do with the NHS?
Illustrating dubious probity. I think that's why medical schools take in more females than males these days. Female physicians commit a third of the fraud of their male colleagues.
Why would medical schools take in more females than males on the basis of probity in a system where there is no scope for fee fraud? And how do you square this with the higher academic results achieved by female school leavers?
As for other improprieties, the GMC handles only 150 cases a year, not all of which are proven. Given the size of the medical profession, that's negligable.
Dr. John, I have but one bone to pick with you; As far as the Brits getting cultural payback for the crusades... Do I recall incorrectly from my days as a student of Spanish lit and history, that those kind muslim chaps invaded Europe _first_? Al-Andalus and all that? Frankly, I'd lay the blame at their feet, if we're going to reach back centries for such things.
Other than that, cheers on the good blog.
Newt. You made the accusation. I've given you the facts. Where's yours? Put up or shut up you troll.
noticed there is a private members bill being tried in parliament today to try and force a PCT to give new sight saving drugs?, there is an ex MP who has been refused the drugs needed to keep her sight, and unlike the rest of us she has the contacts to make a stink in parliament
as she says not paying £ 5 K to save someones sight is false economy as if left to go blind they will cost the economy much more
Sarah,
"No of course male doctors shouldn't be discriminated against (and I don't see that they are; plenty of people prefer a male doctor for one reason or another) but it isn't an unreasonable request in a non-emergency situation, and you certainly can't force someone to be treated or examined if they refuse."
Agreed, but I am finding more and more people demanding it as a "right" to see a female doctor. I had an experience last year working overnight for the local out of hours service of a gentleman demanding a female doctor for his wife who had a sore throat. When I told him that it was "me or nothing, mate" he got very upset with me and even used the "R" word.
I have no problem taking into account cultural and other sensitivities but on the other hand, it is not always possible, even in non emergency situations to give patients what they want.
What do you feel about all female or all one particular religion health services? Is this reasonable or discriminatory?
Matt most of what I was going to say has already been said by Sarah so ditto to that.
No I don't think Muslims or any other religous or racial groups should get any kind of special treatment nor for the most part women either. However maternity is a special case because if women aren't having babies then the whole of human civilization never mind medicine becomes kind of pointless.
I'm not suggesting that male doctors should be banned from obs care or female ones compelled but I can't see that obs being an all female profession would be a terrible thing.
Shiney,
"However maternity is a special case because if women aren't having babies then the whole of human civilization never mind medicine becomes kind of pointless."
Muslims have a special case, homesexuals have a special case, donkeys have a special case!
It's blatent discrimination, pure and simple. I'm almost speechless.................
Not particularly relevant but would a muslim lady request for a lady fire officer to rescue her from a burning bedroom or would she gladly take the firemans shoulder.
That's hard to say Mr Whale, I would have to look it up. Not particularly relevant, you said it man.
Now you're just being plain silly Matt, No Muslims do not have a special case, nor gays nor left handed people nor people who think they're Napoleon Bonaparte (well maybe the last one) though I'm sure that there are people who would use this argument to try and build a case as to why they should have special treatment and they (like the husband of the lady with a sore throat) should be told to sling their hook.
However pregnant women are definitely a special case a) because it's the one reason people see a doctor that isn't a result of there being something wrong with them.
b)Our me me culture notwithstanding we need babies more than we need the elderly or the fanatical or even people like you and me.
Shiny: we would be screwed without fanatical people. Physicists, Irish writers, life-long buskers etc. They just shouldn't expect targeted medical care. Religious fanatics make more babies than the rest of us, and if babies are the most important aren't those who create the most...
It happened in Saudi. Schoolgirls died because the religious police refused to let them exit a burning building in a state of undress.
Peter Whale
"Not particularly relevant but would a muslim lady request for a lady fire officer to rescue her from a burning bedroom or would she gladly take the firemans shoulder."
BCurious
"That's hard to say Mr Whale, I would have to look it up. Not particularly relevant, you said it man."
It is relevant as it highlights the hypocrisy that is related to many religions. When the 's--- hits the fan', a lot of religious principals are conveniently forgotten.
You've got to admire those Christian Scientists though.
Shiny
"Now you're just being plain silly Matt"
Beggin' your pardon. There are no special cases. Women having babies - so what! I had an ingrowing toenail once!
No I actually agree almost entirely with Matt, no special treatment for anyone on grounds of belief, social status or financial clout (and yes I do know in our very imperfect world we get all three at times especially the last one)
But I am prepared to make an exception in the case of maternity care and that alone on the grounds that it is the exception that proves the rule. This is not a big issue for me I assure you I don't plan to firebomb any hospitals, shoot any doctors or call for Jihad because people don't agree with me.
A little discrimination can sometimes be a good thing though, after all it's probably better if the bulk of police officers are large burly males.
Shiny
But the Police are not allowed to discriminate - -it costs them a fortune each year to pay off useless individuals (male & female) who can't do the job.
"A little discrimination can sometimes be a good thing though"
Sorry - no can do!
Matt, I don't know about donkeys, but Monkey World in Dorset got a male gynaecologist in to fit the lady chimps with contraceptive coils.
"French Muslim jailed for attacking gynaecologist" http://news.scotsman.com/latest....fm?
id=131902007
"Gynaecologist to change gender" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...olk/
4594832.stm
I find that rather ironical Matt, given that the police are now having to pay out to white male applicants because they're discriminating in favour of female and/or non-white applicants which brings us neatly back to the mad Doc who started all this with his demands for special treatment on the grounds that not having it was discrimination.
my dog cannot go to the kennels unless he is vacinated but the "knit you own Yogurt brigade,gardian reading free birthing mothers,think it "its wicked to poison your childs system with vacines" I think small cofins are heart breaking especilay when they could have avoided.
K
Brilliant!
[An immunisation/school attendance system like the French one operates in a number of states in the US, where of course the legal system is very much more like ours.]
Not really so much (I had compulsory vaccinations against all sorts of things to attend the Oklahoma school system). The crucial difference is that homeschooling is basically illegal in France, but not in the US or UK, and it would involve really quite a big change in the relationship between the individual and the state to ban it here.
So the consequence of putting your suggestion in place in the UK would be that a lot of Muslims would withdraw their children en bloc from the state school system and educate them separately. Since there are a couple of Middle Eastern organisations that are only too happy to provide funds and resources for this - as long as they get to set the curriculum - this would probably have really bad consequences.
Even in the Third World, big compulsory mass vaccination programmes are controversial and difficult to make work. In the industrial world, there's really no substitute for making the case honestly.
Shiny
"I find that rather ironical Matt, given that the police are now having to pay out to white male applicants because they're discriminating in favour of female and/or non-white applicants which brings us neatly back to the mad Doc who started all this with his demands for special treatment on the grounds that not having it was discrimination."
Just shows that nowone can win when the lawyers are involved (except the lawyers of course)
Seriouly though - you can't discriminate, full stop.
In principle you are absolutely right Matt, discrimination is a bad thing but sometimes it is practical I'm afraid, I rather doubt we will ever allow blind people to drive after all.
The trick is knowing where to draw the line methinks which sadly a few people like Dr Katme don't seem to do.
AFAIK you can break kashrut, kosher or the sabbath if life is at stake. I would contend that immunisation is that important.
+++++++++
From a strictly legal point of view, preventative medicine doesn't permit you to break religious laws, because a life is not *yet* at stake.
A pilpul. I would have to ask the Rabbi about that one!
As a student nurse, I can remember caring for a patient who had been a polio sufferer from the age of 16. He had to wear a Curass jacket to help him breathe and was wheelchair bound. I also had a close family friend from school who died from meningitis at the age of 13. You are right that people forget just how dangerous these so-called childhood diseases can be. My mother, like many in the 1960s sent us to "measles parties" and the like as it was thought better to be exposed as a child! Having also worked for a year for MSF in Africa, the politics around trying to immunise children made it nigh on impossible. Let alone all the other problems-malnutrition and more diseases than you could shake a stick at.
To the average person, vaccination and homeopathy can sound like the same thing.
King Kahled of Saudi Arabia was a diabetic. For many years (before human insulin could be 'manufactured') he was injected daily with porcine insulin. Didn't seem to be an issue...
++++++++++
Insulin is a therapeutic treatment for a disease, vaccine is a prophylactic treatment to prevent a disease. Therefore in Jewish law the status of vaccines is different from the status of insulin. I would presume that Islamic law is structured similarly.
Most Jewish religious authorities regard vaccines as kosher - this has nothing to do with their life-saving properties per se. It has to do with what they are - i.e. not food, to be eaten, and a transformed "pig-derived" or "meat-derived" product, which is somehow distinguished from pig or meat itself (don't ask me how the transformation is effected - the ultra-orthodox are pretty unpersuaded on this point too!) My point was not about whether pig derived products in vaccines are kosher or not from the point of view of religious law. Many regular Jews, who may know bugger all about the intricacies of religious law, have overlaid cultural attitudes of disgust and notions of pig being 'unclean' upon a religious law that only makes a distinction between 'permitted' and 'forbidden'. These predictable cultural aversions matter rather more than the balance of religious legal opinion - if you want vaccines to widely acceptable to Jews, Muslims and anyone else who avoids meat in general, or particular meats.
John - Could I ask you a question about your post? First, let me start by saying that both my children have had all their vaccinations. In your article you talk about "herd immunity" Clearly there have been some scares in the media about vaccinations which will have persuaded some parents not to immunise their children. If the vaccination rates have fallen to the level where a disease can get take hold (and I assume by this that you mean the disease will be self-sustaining), do the children who have been vaccinated need to worry that they might catch the disease?
If the vaccination rates have fallen to the level where a disease can get take hold (and I assume by this that you mean the disease will be self-sustaining), do the children who have been vaccinated need to worry that they might catch the disease?
Justin |
++++
No, not at all. If they have been immunised they are protected.
"herd immunity" is about eradication of diseases. If you have a disease that is only carried by humans, and everyone is immuised, the disease should disappear. Smallpox has thus been eradicated. We should never see it again. Unless those nice people at Porton Down accidentally drop a test tube!
John
No, not at all. If they have been immunised they are protected.
+++++++++++++++
Is that true of all vaccinations? Isn't it right that some people develop antibodies more readily than others in response to the vaccine does (I'm thinking of HepB vaccinations - some people I know have had to have loads before they were deemed 'covered' by Occupational Health - sorry, very untechnical). Aren't some childhood vaccinations like this? (hence boosters - which are sometimes missed)?
Also, there are some (very few) children who can't take vaccinations for some reasons (what reasons?) and isn't this another reason why herd immunity is needed - to protect those children? (I realize this last point isn't about whether vaccinated children are protected - but more about the importance of herd immunity).
"homeschooling is basically illegal in France, but not in the US or UK"
No it isn't illegal, though they don't make things easy for you.
http://www.lesenfantsdabord.org/
...e_juridique.php
there's really no substitute for making the case honestly.
Are you suggesting the case has been made dishonestly in the past?
I like your blog but actually the crusades were not about forcing Muslims to become Christians rather stopping Muslims killing Christians.
Sadly of course they only delayed the destruction of the Byzantanine empire for a few centuries.
"Certainly TB immunisation should be compulsory."
Well, BCG has just been removed from the childhood vaccination schedule in the UK. Allegedly it's only effective against miliary TB and even then only 70% or so (I may be making the figures up - we had an argument one day in the residents' room and I think that's what was quoted...)
Good for TCC though!
I'm shocked, stunned and disgusted at your comments on the Catholic church.
Read the press, use your google, and get your facts straight before touting your bigotry as fact.
Tarring the entire Catholic church with the 'paedophile' brush is akin to classing all doctors as Shipman-esque murderers.
Hi Hospital Phoenix
One should never argue about religion, and in a way I am sorry that we have got into this, but the RC Church is, on matters like this, a disgrace. I think you need to be realistic. No one is suggesting that all members of the RC clergy are paedophiles, but your example of Shipman and doctors is silly. How many mass murdering doctors can you think of? Then ask your self, how many Roman Catholic Priest have been exposed as paedophiles? Over the years, hundreds. I challenge you to name any other profession that has the same problem with paedophiles. And there is NO profession which is specifically charged with the pastoral and moral care of children that has behaved more disgracefully. There is the most extraordinary hypocrisy emanating from the RC hierarchy. Doctrinally they are homophobic, and their views on and their treatment of the gay community have no place in the modern world. There has, sadly, been a disproportionately large number of RC priests involved in paedophilia, and the leadership of the church has NOT take the firm lead that it should have done on this matter. Indeed, it tries to cover up, and protect the priests rather than the victims.
I do not need to use GOOGLE to convince myself of this but since you suggested it, I did search on “roman catholic priests + paedophile”. Try it yourself, this is the result:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h...dophile&
spell=1
I did not have the time to go through the 12 or more pages that were referred to, but here are some from the first page. Some of these articles are hardly “Lancet” material, and some are prejudiced… but not all. And no fair minded person is going to discount all this.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/
art...rticle_63.shtml
Dante reserved the lowest circle of hell—the circle of treachery—for those who violated trust. He placed quite a few priests, church leaders, and popes there. They’ll be getting lots of company . . .
The larger than usual headline of the Philadelphia Inquirer lastThursday read, “An ‘Immoral’ Cover-up.” A grand jury indicted the Philadelphia archdiocese in a 418-page report detailing rampant pedophilia and sexual abuse as well as decades of well planned, sinister cover-up orchestrated by two Philadelphia cardinals, (the late) John Krol and (recently retired) Anthony Bevilacqua. Krol was and Bevilacqua is an outspoken critic of homosexuality and civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans.
Here are just a few of the documented examples of what predator priests did under the protection of Krol and Bevilacqua:
An 11-year-old girl was repeatedly raped by a priest who took her for an abortion when she became pregnant.
A fifth grader was molested by a priest inside a confessional.
A teenage girl was groped by a priest while she lay immobilized in traction in a hospital room.
A priest offered money to boys in exchange for sadomasochistic acts of bondage and wrote a letter asking a boy to make him his “slave.” The priest remains in ministry.
A sadistic priest enjoyed having children play the roles of Jesus and other biblical characters in parish Passion plays. He made them disrobe and whip each other until they had cuts, bruises and welts.
A priest falsely told a 12-year-old boy his mother knew of the assaults and consented to the rape of her son.
http://skeptically.org/onreligio...igion/
id10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rom...sex_abuse_cases
http://www.answers.com/topic/rom...sex-abuse-
cases
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
religi...1766941,00.html
“The real conspiracy in the Catholic church has nothing to do with the Da Vinci Code, says Patrick Wall - it's the cover-up of paedophile priests. Mark Honigsbaum meets the former monk who is leading a crusade to hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice
http://www.theinquiry.ca/Loftus.hide.php
The RC priest sex scandal in the USA, from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
3872499.stm
And what does the Vatican do about it? It issues guidelines (GUIDELINES?) in Latin. Yes, in Latin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
1749911.stm
“The Roman Catholic Church has published guidelines for its senior clergy on how to handle cases of child abuse by priests. The guidelines, written in Latin, were issued last year, but only published on Tuesday as part of the Acts of the Apostolic See, the Vatican's official legislation record. They state that suspected cases should immediately be reported to Rome, so the Vatican can determine the course of action - although they do not outline what could happen to those found guilty or whether civil authorities should be told. In recent high-profile scandals, courts in France and the US found senior Roman Catholic clergy guilty of covering up child abuse by priests.”
Note, they don’t say what every right thinking human being would say, namely shop the buggers to the police. They say “report them to the Vatican so that the VATICAN CAN CONSIDER THE COURSE OF ACTION” . Why not report them to the police? Talk me through that?
“Accompanying the guidelines was a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - which deals with matters of faith and morals "With this letter, we hope that not only will these serious crimes be avoided, but, above all, that the holiness of the clergy and the faithful be protected," it said. The document said bishops and heads of religious orders must inform Rome if they discover "even a hint" of paedophilia by a priest and launch an investigation. Clergymen involved in sexual abuse cases will then go before either a local ecclesiastical court or the Vatican Congregation itself which will be the appeal court in either case. The hearing will all be held in secret. As a result, the Vatican will control the problem directly, instead of it being left in the domain of national churches.
Razinger? Hasn’t he been promoted since then? This is not about JUSTICE. This is not about the criminal law. This is about protecting the buggers from the police. This is about cover up and sweeping it under the carpet.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002...20424/
world.htm
The pope aplogises. But did the Church pay damages volunatarily to the victims. Did it?
http://www.geocities.com/
newworl...olicchurch.html
Perhaps the recently disgraced paedophile priest Fr. Paul Shanley was intimating this when he threatened to release sensitive information about the Church should he be exposed as a paedophile. "Were I to release this to the press, you would have to fire another half dozen of your top priests, since what they are saying is far more shocking than my poor offerings", Fr. Shanley disclosed in a letter to his Cardinal. Indeed, what could be "far more shocking" than paedophilia?
http://news.scotsman.com/topics....=305&
format=rss
A “roundup” from a Scottish newspaper of RC sexual abuse.
And then the cover up:
http://www.moriel.org/articles/
d...for_priests.htm
Vatican to Hold Secret Trials of Priests in Paedophilia Cases
From Boston, to Brooklyn, to Scranton and beyond and faster than Moriel can report on, cases of paedophilia Roman Catholic priests are being exposed and lawsuits are being filed. We are seeing with more and more frequency, Roman Catholic priests are being brought up on charges of paedophilia in the daily newspapers and cover-ups by the Roman Catholic Church around the world with the result being that Jesus' name is being dragged though the mud. And, in an effort to stem the tide of lawsuits, outgoing funds and despicable behaviour by priests within the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II has issued new rules stating that the Roman Catholic Church will use secret ecclesiastical courts to try priests accused of sexually abusing children and will oversee the cases directly from Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/
reborne...olicpriests.htm
++++++++++
Finally, this is not about ordinary members of the RC church, which I guess you may be. It is about the leadership of the RC church.
Sorry if you find it upsetting, but it is a fact of life.
John
Nice bit of selective anecdotal waffling but...
if we come down to the numbers of reported cases of child sexual abuse in the USA over the past 20 years (which took me about 3 seconds to find, and another 3 minutes to confirm)
0.2% of Catholic priests accused
2-5% of Protestant ministers accused
5-10% of public school teachers accused.
Secondly, the Catholic Church is not homophobic. They teach love and acceptance alongside certain moral teachings. They do not hate or fear homosexuality, they merely teach that it does not correlate with their moral and religious beliefs. Whilst I don't agree with the Catholic church's moral beliefs, I cannot in any way fault the church's teaching of universal charity and acceptance.
Dr Crippen, not that it's any of your business but I don't go to any church. I do know however, that the Catholic church are an overly stigmatised and targeted group. Discredit me for trying to be a fair and good person, but please don't accuse me of possessing beliefs which I do not.
I'm sorely disappointed to see your postings on this issue. You claim to abhor this behaviour when it's targetted at GPs or the medical profession, yet you're happy to throw accusations and lies at another group without apology.
Don't bother trying to defend yourself by insulting or discrediting me, because I won't be coming back to look at this particular post again.
Quite right HP. Crippen is a misguided zealot.
If you are going to talk shit Crippen, can you at least make it witty?
I'm a Catholic, and I don't find the Church's attitude to homosexuals at all charitable or accepting. I couldn't believe it when the Vatican decreed that homosexuals should not be accepted into the priesthood. What's that about? Priests are supposed to be celibate (except those that came across from the Anglican communion already married) so who cares what their orientation is? It's about a stereotype that homosexuals pose a greater risk to children.
I haven't taken communion or been to confession since the Vatican made that decision. It's difficult to know what to say when you think the leader of the Church has behaved with pointless bigotry.
Don't bother trying to defend yourself by insulting or discrediting me, because I won't be coming back to look at this particular post again.
Hospitalphoenix
+++++++++++++
Oh dear, HP, I was not trying to discredit you, nor was I attacking you in any way.
All I said was:
"Finally, this is not about ordinary members of the RC church, which I guess you may be."
Note "guess". And why on earth should "guessing" that you might be a member of the church be insulting or discrediting you?
Then you say:
"Secondly, the Catholic Church is not homophobic. They teach love and acceptance alongside certain moral teachings. They do not hate or fear homosexuality, they merely teach that it does not correlate with their moral and religious beliefs. Whilst I don't agree with the Catholic church's moral beliefs, I cannot in any way fault the church's teaching of universal charity and acceptance."
Hmm.... "They teach love and acceptance alongside certain moral teachings."
"certain moral teachings" ??? You mean they condemn outright the physical side of gay relationships. Gay men have to be celibate?
"They do not hate or fear homosexuality, they merely teach that it does not correlate with their moral and religious beliefs."
That sort of teaching is unacceptable and homophobic.
The RC church has caused great upset to gay men and women, and their views are unwelcome in the modern world.
"I'm sorely disappointed to see your postings on this issue."
Only one post, not "postings". It is the first time I have mentioned it.
I'm sorry you won't be coming back - that is not the most convincing way to resolve a difference of opinion.
John
Hi again, Hospital Phoenix
Well, OK, you have gone away and will not be reading this. I tried to validate what you say above on Google, and finally managed it. Heavens, you accused me of selecting sources; I just took the first ones that came up on Google. And now I have found your source. Well, blow me down, it comes from the CATHOLIC LEAGUE
http://www.catholicleague.org/
re...ial_context.htm
And they say:
PRIESTS
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]
Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[viii]
The situation in Boston, the epicenter of the scandal, is even worse. According to the Boston Globe, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims. And the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.”[ix]
In a database analysis of reports on more than 1,200 alleged victims of priests identified by USA Today, 85 percent were males.[x] In another study by USA Today, it was determined that of the 234 priests who have been accused of sexual abuse of a minor while serving in the nation’s 10 largest dioceses and archdioceses, 91 percent of their victims were males.[xi]
Much has been made of a survey done by the Dallas Morning News which claims that two-thirds of the nation’s bishops have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to continue working. But the problem with the survey is its definition of abuse—it includes everything from “ignoring warnings about suspicious behavior” to “criminal convictions.”[xii] Thus, the survey is of limited utility.
++++++
Read the last paragraph carefully. It’s the cover up. It’s pure Bill “it depends what you mean by sex” Clinton.
“But the problem with the survey is its definition of abuse—it includes everything from “ignoring warnings about suspicious behavior” to “criminal convictions.”[xii] Thus, the survey is of limited utility”
Oh dear, oh dear.
+++++++
I did then find this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/...4/5/
01552.shtml
which suggests that, whatever the problems may be with the RC church, it may be even worse with American School teachers.
++++++++++++
And there is lots more of it here:
http://www.google.com/Top/Societ...e/Sexual_Abuse/
Finally, from RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE:
http://www.religioustolerance.or.../
clergy_sex.htm
Overview:
This section deals mainly with sexual abuse of youths and younger children by Roman Catholic clergy. Little information is available on the frequency of abuse among clergy in other Christian denominations and in other religions.
What little hard information that is available seems to indicate that:
Pedophilia (sexual abuse by adults of pre-pubertal children) is lower among Catholic clergy than among the general male population.
Hebephilia (sexual abuse by adults of post-pubertal children) is much more common among Catholic clergy than in the general population; it is a major concern.
Sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
+++++++
HP, your point may be that there are others that are even worse than the RC church. It does not justify anything even if it is true. There is something particularly repugnant about an someone who is supposed to be looking after a child’s “immortal soul” and yet abuses him. It is a particularly offensive abuse of position. That is my belief, and it is widely shared.
If you believe otherwise, stay and demonstrate why you are right.
John
What about male doctors. What is the incidence of sex crimes in that group. Or are there no recorded cases?
Two of the greatest things that science and medicine have done, ever, were the discoveries of the fact that diseases are frequently water borne, and we then developed potable water supplies, and then the development of vaccines to prevent childhood and adult diseases. These two things have saved more lives and lessened more suffering and morbidity than any amount of pills and surgeries could ever do.
If people would only observe and accept the logic of science rather than the irrationality of religion we wouldn't need this discussion.
religion motivates people to greatness. it's like plato said, "it doesn't matter how the !@#$ you get there, as long as you get there". many famous scientists were profoundly religious men. also, many great painters and writers. i think surgery saves a lot of lives but I'm not sure about this pill-culture. i think in the long run we find out these meds introduce more problems than they fix.
What about male doctors. What is the incidence of sex crimes in that group. Or are there no recorded cases?
Newton
++++
I don't know what the incidence is; I DO know that the GMC spends most of its working life policing this, and countless doctors have been struck of for sexual impropriety. And rightly so.
I cannot recall may RC priests being defrocked for paedophilia, nor can I find a list anywhere.
John
"many famous scientists were profoundly religious men. also, many great painters and writers."
Do you know that they were great scientists/artists/etc becuse of religion, or in spite of it. Or are the two things even connected at all?
It has not always been so socially acceptable to be openly athiest, and at certain times in history most people will have expressed some form of religious belief. Many, indeed, will have taken it seriously and been very devout. However most of them did not become famous scientists or poets.
"The Jewish school where half the pupils are Muslim"
http://
education.independent.co....icle2201860.ece
I don't see what the big deal is about this. St Martin de Porres round the corner from King David's seems to be mostly Muslim as well. There are Muslim schools in the area, but they are either supplementary schools or secondary schools. What other ethnic mix would you expect in a city due to become majority-minority in 2010?
"Mum furious as kids are denied vital TB jabs"
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co....-
name_page.html
Nutty - most stories I see are about Muslims not caring too much for Jews, so I thought it was interesting to see this story. I've heard of Muslims in church schools before, but never choosing a Jewish school.
"Mum furious as kids are denied vital TB jabs"
Well, yes, as mentioned above, TB vaccination has been removed from the childhood schedule in the UK for all except high-risk cases. So it's not the school's fault.
Personally, I'm not too sure about the logic of removing it but... but then we don't immunise against chickenpox and Hep B either, unlike some countries.
Very intresting comments..
It helped in my questions!
Commenting by HaloScan
