Page: 1234
Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:So I was having a talk with my senior resident.

Ok here's the setting: We work at a city hospital that serves Medicaid patients. These are poor, underserved patients who can't afford their own medical insurance and so have government insurance.

The thing is that most of these patients live on welfare, too. And when I say "on welfare," I mean that mom doesn't work because she has three kids and three kids pay enough welfare for mom to be able to support the family without working.

Here's the general life cycle in the Bronx.
1) 15-year-old girl gets pregnant, has baby.
2) 15-year-old girl, of course, cannot support baby and collects welfare.
3) Now 16-year-old girl drops out of school (or perhaps graduates high school) and in the process, manages to repeat the mistake and have another baby.
4) Now 19-year-old girl is working a minimum-wage job while grandma (aged 35 or so) is raising the two kids...and...manages to get pregnant AGAIN...
5) Now, with three kids, the welfare check is sufficient that she can maintain her three kids in a 2-bedroom apartment, and she stops working so she can raise her kids, because Grandma is at wit's end.
6) Now 25-26-year-old woman either fails to talk to her daughter about the birds and the bees or simply forbids her daughter to have sex. Which eventually results in...
7) 15-year-old girl gets pregnant, has a baby.

So here is my resident's plan. Quite simply, you are limited to three kids that you cannot support. Once you have that third kid, if you apply for government assistance, you are forced to undergo a tubal ligation/vasectomy. Both of these are reversible procedures so that if you do manage to pull your life back together, you can have (at government cost) the procedure reversed. Her reasoning is simple: "If you can't make a responsible choice and continue to spend my tax dollars on raising your kids, then I have to make the choice for you."

As horrible as it sounds, I honestly believe that these children are poorly raised by immature parents who were poorly raised themselves. As long as this cycle is allowed to continue unchecked, it will continue unchecked.

Here are my additions:
1) Sex ed is MANDATORY for all kids at age 10. Seem young? Most of my patients had coitarche (coit-ark-ee, meaning the onset of sexual activity) at age 12-13. No religious opt-outs, no exceptions, nothing. EVERYONE gets sex ed. Reading, writing, 'rithmetic, and reproductive planning. And condoms are provided FREE in schools. Birth control may be prescribed without parental consent and is available FREE to teenagers.

2) If you get pregnant and you are under 18, you have two choices: you may a) abort or b) give the baby up for ANONYMOUS adoption. Children may not raise children. If it's 11:58 PM on the evening of your 18th birthday and you have a kid...tough. Adoption. If you want a kid that badly, you can have another later.

Yes, it sounds harsh, but you have to look at it from the point of view of someone who has to take care of these children. I find them to be almost uniformly medically neglected. I have *NEVER* seen a parent actually fill a prescription for antibiotics that I have given, in spite of careful instruction and pep-talks into the importance of these. Parents expect us to GIVE them (because we do) over-the-counter drugs such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol, as they call it in the UK). They also expect the hospital to GIVE them passes on public transportation. And they call the EMS for their kid's coughs and colds because they know that EMS has to accept all pediatric patients, regardless of whether the complaint warrants EMS transport. And they have to pay ZERO copay for ED visits. I have seen so many children come in having asthma attacks and needing high-dose steroids (with cumulative toxicity) because their parents couldn't be arsed to fill and administer their preventative meds. I have seen obesity because more than 90% of a kid's diet is fast food because the parents can't be arsed to cook.

I beleive in government health care and I believe in the need for a social safety net, but there has to be some personal accountability in the system. The system as it is (at least in New York City) seems to reward people for abusing it. It's time that some pop-off valves were installed.

After all, I'm a working physician. I pay for my health insurance. If I go to the ED, I have a $50 copay and office visits have a $20 copay. Prescriptions have a copay from $10 to $30. I don't get over-the-counter drugs covered. And my insurance would LAUGH at me if I asked them for a MTA Metrocard. Why do unemployed people get better health insurance than I do?

At least I know where that third of my paycheck is going.

-Doc "The Conservatives aren't wrong about *everything*" Lightning


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

spritie
spritie

Pooh-Bah
Location: Galveston, TX
Member Since: 9th Sep 2001
Total posts: 2014
Posted:Brit_joe, the system over here is similar to what you describe (if you don't find a job in X amount of time, no more welfare money) at least for single people. It's not looked on favorably in many places to be on welfare. But, in some parts of certain cities, everyone is on it because the stigma isn't there, and in some cases it can seem like an easy out.

The problem is slightly different for hospital care. If you don't have health insurance, there is a way for you to get medical care. You choice of doctors and hospitals is severly limited. You also are not always offered the same surgeries/options as someone with health insurance. In some cases, you are required to pay for your care on an installment plan so that your costs upfront are none (or minimal), but you will be required to pay for your surgery for the rest of your life. Now, many people don't make enough money for this to be feasible, so they opt to declare bankruptcy which then makes the debt disappear - all sorts of bad things happen to your credit if you do this, but it is an option that seems increasingly favorable for many. That's also partially why the bankruptcy laws are changing in the country in another week.


Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:There is no guarantee tho that adoptive parents, (however well checked out and vetted), will definately all remain together in a happy relationship, with never having any financial problems etc etc etc for the next 18years, whilst they are responsible for that child.
What do you propose doc happens to the children who have been adopted and end up in single parent households on welfare????


Delete

Igirisujin
Igirisujin

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Preston
Member Since: 10th Jul 2005
Total posts: 2666
Posted:Oh and I think governments in every country need to start spreading the message about sexual health and promote the use of condoms more, I dont think contraceptive pills should be given out free, or handed out over the counter because then it means more people tend to opt for those rather than condoms.



Condoms are far better than anything else and will be for a long time, why would anyone want to bother with pills or coils, or methods of 'safe sex' like the withdrawl method, or the safe period. Its much quicker to just take out a condom and hand it to the guy, or a femidom(?) for the woman, having a barrier between you and not only a baby but much worse things like HIV and AIDs is much better in the end.



I think condoms should be more redilly avaliable like in general shops like Boots, not just pharmacys and clinics.


Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat

'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?

Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:I think you can get condoms in boots and most supermarkets and the like. But they should be free!



I remember when I was in college (age 16-18 in uk) and we were trying to persuade the college to put condom machines in the college toilets, they refused at the time saying that it would encourage students to have sex!!!!!!!! like the majority weren't doing it anyway!

EDITED_BY: becci (1128702897)


Delete

Azrelle_
Azrelle_

member
Location: Glasgow-ish
Member Since: 1st Oct 2005
Total posts: 39
Posted:most UK doctors surgeries will have free condoms in the loos
many nightclubs also provide free condoms

Your doctor can give you free condoms too if you ask

The reason everyone pays for them is they are too scared to ask for their free ones. smile


Live life the fun way

Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:If you pop along to a family planning clinic they give you hundreds of the things.

Just one thing.....at what age should they be available free? should there be a lower age limit, seeing as you aren't meant to have sex until you are 16...we all know it happens younger in some cases. We have already discussed the pill etc for under 16s but what should be the youngest?

Are we saying that as long as you do it safely it doesn't matter how young you are...or that if you are 13 and want to have sex then we'd rather you did it safely here have a load of free condoms.
I am a little worried about this....but I don't know the answer....discuss


Delete

linden rathen
linden rathen

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 2nd Mar 2005
Total posts: 6942
Posted:i think doc's point about forced sterilisation raises an interesting point - the population of the world is still growing fast - not so in the 1st world where its steady or in slow decline - but still growing - what happens when it hits saturation point?

as for sterilisation i think that is a bit OTT but if the parent cant support the child their should be some system by which they are fined. putting a cap on benifits would be a good idea and sterilising lazy dads would work as well perhaps the best would be to remove home comforts?

perhaps if its obvious a parent is abusing benifits some of their luxuries should be removed

condoms are the best way

i think it would be best that kids are given condoms than the pill

in a way you can kinda see the use of creating a social stigma over sex in general

maybe sterilsation at birth is the way to go smile


back

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: spritie

Mike, is there any way that you could give the women some form of long term birth control instead? I think the only such thing available in the states (at least that you wouldn't have to come back more than yearly to mess with) is the IUD. I may be very wrong (and please correct me if I am), but doesn't having ones tubes tied early mess with hormones and then possibly cause complications later in life?



Well, one option that I could think of would be "If you are relying on government support to raise three children, then you MUST be on birth control. Don't want to be on birth control? Fine. You don't get government support. Be aware that your children may be removed by CPS/ACS if you are unable to support them."

The only problem is that there is no equivalent male contraceptive.

Written by:

Also, what do you have against open adoptions since you mentioned anonymous ones specifically?



The problem with open adoptions is that then once the kid is ten someone tries to come back and take the kid away from the only family he's ever known.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: becci

There is no guarantee tho that adoptive parents, (however well checked out and vetted), will definately all remain together in a happy relationship, with never having any financial problems etc etc etc for the next 18years, whilst they are responsible for that child.
What do you propose doc happens to the children who have been adopted and end up in single parent households on welfare????



Again, three-child rule. If you are raising three kids on government support, you may not have any more kids on government support.

If you adopt five kids and can't take care of them, then that's neglect and they need re-placement.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Birgit

Agree with No. 1 - would be silly to have the pill free for 13-y-olds cause you really shouldn't interfere with their hormones that early, unless there's a medical reason for it. So free condoms and mandatory sex-ed, yes of course.



I'd argue that a teenage pregnancy messes with hormones a lot worse than birth control does. I believe that all sexually active women who do not wish to have children should be on birth control. There are so many different options out there that 99%+ of patients can tolerate SOME form. Even if it's an IUD.

Written by:
But No. 2 I just can't agree on. Some of my friends have been born to teenagers, and I can't say they are worse people for it. On the contrary, they are better friends with their mums than most. In the past, it was usual for 15-y-olds to have kids, and it is possible, even though nowadays society is structured differently, and 15-y-olds aren't adults. However, if they grow up in censored families they're probably more grown-up than a 24-y-old student with his head up in the clouds.

There is a difference between a 17-y-old getting pregnant in a relationship with a guy who acts responsible, and both families supporting them, and a 17-y-old party-goer with parents who don't give a damn or can't manage to help getting pregnant from one of the 10 guys she slept with that month. You can't treat them all equally.



Yes, there is perhaps a difference, but there is a similarity. In neither case is it likely that the parents have the education or financial resources to raise a child. And even if they did have the education because they were both childhood genius college graduates, people under 18 can't sign their own contracts. They can't even have their own bank accounts.

Written by:
Finally, if a woman has 3 kids, and her rich husband suddenly decides to run off with his secretary, and it turns out she's left with nothing (happened to someone I know so it's not hypothetical), would you sterilise her because she needs social benefits now? You'd highly reduce all chances of her finding a new partner (who'd have to care for 3 kids with no chance of having his own with her one day) and coming off the social benefits.



I think part of this system would be that that rich husband WILL pay child support or he WILL wind up in prison. The system as it is is ridiculously easy on deadbeat dads.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning


I think part of this system would be that that rich husband WILL pay child support or he WILL wind up in prison. The system as it is is ridiculously easy on deadbeat dads.



What a wonderful idea...with which i totally agree..

except I would take it a step further to say that... even non-rich dads should have to find a way to pay what is necessary to bring up a child, if they dont earn enough then get 2 jobs, as simple as that. Just because the an ex doesn't earn much doesn't mean that the cost in raising a child (and i am talking about keeping above poverty line) goes down.
The money has to come from somewhere and I agree it should not come from tax payers money, except in some very special circumstances.

When will people start coming down heavy on dead beat dads instead of mums on welfare?


Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: becci

What a wonderful idea...with which i totally agree..

except I would take it a step further to say that... even non-rich dads should have to find a way to pay what is necessary to bring up a child, if they dont earn enough then get 2 jobs, as simple as that. Just because the an ex doesn't earn much doesn't mean that the cost in raising a child (and i am talking about keeping above poverty line) goes down.
The money has to come from somewhere and I agree it should not come from tax payers money, except in some very special circumstances.

When will people start coming down heavy on dead beat dads instead of mums on welfare?



I think it has to stop being based on sex. What about the stay-at-home DAD whose wife walks out on him?

It needs to be based on who has income. In the event of a separation, the cost of childcare should be based on income. If mom makes $10,000 a year and dad makes $90,000 a year then dad covers 90% of the cost.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning

It needs to be based on who has income. In the event of a separation, the cost of childcare should be based on income. If mom makes $10,000 a year and dad makes $90,000 a year then dad covers 90% of the cost.



Hear Hear!

I'm actually lucky that my dad pays quite a lot more than he has to, and will continue to do so throughout University. We'd have had it much harder if he hadn't been paying more than the legally required maintenance.

For all of you who say "We need more Sex Ed" then I can't complain about mine. We got classes in years 6,8,9,10,11. After that, people were legally allowed to have sex, and many leave school to work. In year 9 we got given a condom each and each table was given a ceramic dildo, with veins and everything... the things must have been 11" tall... ubblol

Despite the fact that most of the class was too busy trying to blu-tack them to the wall to pay attention, almost everyone sucessfully put a condom on them. This, I believe, is one of the best methods of education I've ever seen. "This is a Penis. This is a condom. This goes *here*."

But I guess that approach might only work with certain teachers. shrug Not every adult is comfortable talking about sex, which strikes me as a bit weird, but there you go. ubbrollsmile


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:The other thing is that under my proposed program, sterilization wouldn't be "forced." In fact, it would be completely voluntary. It's just that here would be the options:

1) Use birth control (or abstinence, if you like).
2) Have as many kids as you like...as long as you can support them.
3) Collect welfare and free health insurance and WIC, but get those tubes tied after 3 government-funded kids.

In other words, nobody's strapping anyone to an OR table and doing a procedure. All I'm saying is that there needs to be an effective means of permanent birth control after three kids or the parent is ineligible for any government assistance.

And, as for the kids, if a parent refuses the birth control and can't raise the kids, then CPS/ACS steps in.

The only option I'm wanting to remove is: "keep having as many kids as you like and the taxpayers will keep paying for them without any consequence to you."


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Azrelle_
Azrelle_

member
Location: Glasgow-ish
Member Since: 1st Oct 2005
Total posts: 39
Posted:I met a mother once who lived on benefits who had 13 kids

Dunno what the deal elsewhere, but apparently in the UK you stop getting extra child support after kiddy number 5 (i think, i haven't double checked this) I was a bit surprised by that but she wasn't complaining. She was lucky in that her husband had managed to find a job, ok not well paid, and they could just about make ends meet.

The reason I came across her was because she was suffering very badly from depression linked to the death of one of her children from an accident and a new baby had just arrived. There was no doubt she loved her kids to bits, but she was struggling to cope.

I just had to laugh that her and her husband lived in two separate council houses.... it was the only way to get enough rooms for all the kids!! teehee


Live life the fun way

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:I went to high school with a Mormon family of SEVENTEEN kids.

SEVENTEEN. No twins in the bunch, either.

Dad was an obstetrician/gynecologist who made absurd amounts of money. At one point the family owned two homes next to each-other.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

linden rathen
linden rathen

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 2nd Mar 2005
Total posts: 6942
Posted:there are a few cases where people have massive families and can live off the benifits because often its their kid's kids with them as well so multiple layers of child benifit

theres a family over here where the 35 y/old mum has 5 girls 15,16,17,18,19 (or something like that) and each of them is a mother....


back

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Last night the PICU took an admission of a 3yo girl. Her mother lives on welfare. She has EIGHT kids and has been pregnant 13 times. She is 28. She doesn't give her kids their asthma treatments, so her daughter wound up in the PICU.

And ACS has nothing to say about this case. mad


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:just out of interest what did the little girl's dad have to say about this?

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Mom doesn't even know who her dad is. She has multiple male sexual partners and never uses protection.

Maury Povich couldn't out-do our pediatrics service, I swear.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

linden rathen
linden rathen

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 2nd Mar 2005
Total posts: 6942
Posted:i think the most neglegent thing i have ever heard of in relationship to parents, their children and medicine is people who dont beleive in using vaccinations

instead they network - when one of the kids in the network gets disease x the parents take their kids and try and get them to catch said disease to give them later immunity

am i the only one who thinks this should be banned?


back

Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:I think you may actually be confusing two issues here.

The immunisation thing you are on about i think is the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination, which if I remember rightly in some reseach has been linked to autism. Therefore some parents choose not to have their children vaccinated or choose to pay for the seperate vaccines. It is very hard to know what to do as a parent when the research conclusions change so often.

But the networking thing I think you are talking about is for chicken pox, for which there is currently no vaccine. The theory is that as it is so contageous most of the children in a class/ social group will probably all get it at the same time ( i remember me and my 3 brothers all had it one xmas- and my own 2 got in straight after each other).
The theory (not that I know much about it, just stating what I have heard) is that you can only get chicken pox once ( i have heard of cases of people having it twice tho) but that if you have it as a child and get it over and done with then it is better as it can cause more complications if you become ill with it as an adult.

I'm not totally clued up on medical things but I guess this is what you are refering to, as I really don't think any parent would want their child intentionally to catch measles, mumps or german measles as they are all very very nasty.


Delete

polythene
veteran
Location: London/ Surrey
Member Since: 15th May 2003
Total posts: 1359
Posted:You may only catch chicken pox once, but you only need to. It's caused by varicella zoster virus, and can sit dormant for years in parts of nerve cells, ready to cause shingles later in life. Nasty stuff.

The optimist claims that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this is true.

Always make time to play in the snow.

Delete

Azrelle_
Azrelle_

member
Location: Glasgow-ish
Member Since: 1st Oct 2005
Total posts: 39
Posted:It is better to get chicken pox as a kid, and if all the kids get it over and done with at the same time collectively they are at less risk later.

Reactivation of the virus in later life is shingles, which can be a right bugger, but not as life threatening as a first dose.

Some conditions though that vaccines do exist for I would not agree to this method. Of particular worry in the uk is the high number of people opting out of MMR vaccinations which could lead to a rise in cases of measles, mumps and rubella amongst children. Whilst it is yet to be proven that the triple vaccine causes harm the effect of the claim could yet cause some serious problems

but this is way off topic now....lol


Live life the fun way

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: becci

I think you may actually be confusing two issues here.

The immunisation thing you are on about i think is the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination, which if I remember rightly in some reseach has been linked to autism.



NO!!! MMR HAS NOT BEEN LINKED TO AUTISM!!!!

Not one, but *TWO* enormous and very well-done studies on hundreds of thousands of children in Scandanivia found that there was no link whatsoever between MMR and autism.

The anti-vaccine people have "vowed to find a link," which pretty much puts the whole thing in perspective right there. "We'll find a link whether it's there or not."

No vaccine currently in use has been found to be linked to any developmental disorder.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: becci

But the networking thing I think you are talking about is for chicken pox, for which there is currently no vaccine.



There is a very good vaccine against chicken pox which provides lifetime immunity and decreases the risk of developing shingles later in life.

People distrust vaccines because they're so safe and so effective that the iconoclasts just *have* to attack them.

I personally consider it child abuse to fail to vaccinate. Too bad ACS doesn't.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

becci
becci

Pancake Maker
Location: south wales
Member Since: 3rd Dec 2004
Total posts: 151
Posted:I actually have had my children vaccinated. I was just stating that "some people" believe that there is a link with autism and MMR that is why they decide to not have their children vaccinated, or to opt for the seperate jabs.

Is the chicken pox vaccine widely available in the states then? as it is not at all here. Here chicken pox is seen as one of those things that all children will probably get at some point.

Just out of interest how much do vaccines cost in the U.S?
I think when it was in the news that people were opting to go private and pay for the MMR ones seperately they were about 50 pounds ( for some reason my computer doesn't have pound symbol) each.
Here all childhood ones are free on the NHS. (Maybe the budgeting bigwigs consider the chicken pox one to be too expensive to administer to all)


Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: becci

I actually have had my children vaccinated. I was just stating that "some people" believe that there is a link with autism and MMR that is why they decide to not have their children vaccinated, or to opt for the seperate jabs.


I don't know of any center that carries the separate vaccines here.
Written by:


Is the chicken pox vaccine widely available in the states then? as it is not at all here. Here chicken pox is seen as one of those things that all children will probably get at some point.


The vaccine was introduced in Japan around 1990. They started (Started!) using it with kids with leukemia there. Talk about ballsy.

I don't know why the UK doesn't use it. Chickenpox is seen as a benign childhood illness. After all, we all had it, right? But in adults it's often deadly.

In kids it's rarely deadly, but has been known to be. It also is mutilating (Ieaves scars...I have two on my face). And then there's singles, which are terribly painful.
Written by:

Just out of interest how much do vaccines cost in the U.S?
I think when it was in the news that people were opting to go private and pay for the MMR ones seperately they were about 50 pounds ( for some reason my computer doesn't have pound symbol) each.
Here all childhood ones are free on the NHS. (Maybe the budgeting bigwigs consider the chicken pox one to be too expensive to administer to all)



All child vaccines are covered by insurance, and failing that most pediatricians will provide them free of charge, because we honestly believe that they are that important. Most kids can get free insurance that will cover the vaccines.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Kyrian
Dreamer
Location: York, England
Member Since: 15th Mar 2002
Total posts: 4308
Posted:You missed my point about adoptions, but i missed yours, so we'll call it good.

The chicken pox vaccine is indeed readily available over here, altho I'm a freak of nature and it didn't work on me. (I've not had the disease).

I think other people are doing a much better job on this topic than I am... I'm not really against some of what you say, just the broad sweeping generalization about under-18's having children... yeah, i'm still livid about that so I'll stay out of it. Perhaps if CPS/ACS were better than I might not be so insane about the legality problems under 18's have (altho if you're married you can sign your own contracts, have bank accounts, etc, and i bet the father would come after someone who tried to take his kid away...)

but one more thing... teens can't go on iud's! I mean, they *can* theoretically, but practically who exactly is going to do that? I can't have an IUD as a 21yo, surely no-one's suddenly going to start oking it for 17yos? Or can you change that one too? I mean as long as were in ideal land, but last i checked this was reality... :/


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

spritie
spritie

Pooh-Bah
Location: Galveston, TX
Member Since: 9th Sep 2001
Total posts: 2014
Posted:why can't a teen have an IUD? They can last anywhere from 1-10 years, are removable, and most people are still able to have children after their removal if they so choose.

Delete

Page: 1234

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [forced sterilization] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Juggling > Bounce juggling > forced cascade *help/resource
2. Learn > Juggling > Bounce juggling > forced tennis *help/resource
3. Forums > Forced sterilization [90 replies]
4. Forums > Forced social skills [16 replies]
5. Learn > POI > Linear Extensions > horizontal cat eye *help/resource explain  but its basically a lot of forced momentum  you won t be getting a...

     Show more..