4 ms·

Yes, exactly. Then they should focus outreach to those parents.. which is what's happening.

woodruffw 5y ago
I'm sorry, but what? The article mentions receiving postcards and other information at the minor's home, which is presumably their guardian's home. Is the state of Tennessee not allowed to address children by their name when informing a household that a minor is due for a vaccine?
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  They address that pretty clearly: > Postcards will still be sent to adults, but teens will be excluded from the mailing list so the postcards are not “potentially interpreted as solicitation to minors,” the report states. I'm not sure about what the state of Tennessee is allowed to do but our pediatrician addresses reminders, calls, etc to the parents, not the children. Because again, kids can't consent but I can and do on their behalf.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The fact that they address it doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous distinction to make. The idea that you can even "solicit" a child to receive vaccines (as if they're an addictive pharmaceutical rather than a baseline preventative measure in the developed world) is farcical. Making the state's medical infrastructure contort itself to avoid referring to children in the second person reeks of politics over public health.
    - caseysoftware 5y ago
      "solicit" has a few definitions. In this case, I think it's used as in "advertising" or "pitching" versus "encouraging illegal behavior" so I think they're using it neutrally vs nefarious.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Which begs the question: if it's strictly neutral, why is it a problem to tell minors that they're due for a vaccine? They're still held to the same standard of consent as before, so why the extra indirection? Even "advertising" and "pitching" are misleading framings. Vaccines are public health policy, notifying people of their eligibility falls squarely within the state's basic obligation to notify its citizens.
        caseysoftware 5y ago
        It's not "indirection" because most kids can't consent. The ones who can - according to the Mature Minor Doctrine - must also have evaluation+approval from a healthcare provider. Adults can usually tell the difference between can, should, and must but many kids implicitly trust adults, especially those who seem important - see: Milgram experiment for an adult example - so an official postcard may be taken as a demand instead of an opportunity. Similarly, the police shouldn't talk to your kids without your consent either. It protects everyone.

I'm sorry, but what? The article mentions receiving postcards and other information at the minor's home, which is presumably their guardian's home. Is the state of Tennessee not allowed to address children by their name when informing a household that a minor is due for a vaccine?

caseysoftware 5y ago
They address that pretty clearly: > Postcards will still be sent to adults, but teens will be excluded from the mailing list so the postcards are not “potentially interpreted as solicitation to minors,” the report states. I'm not sure about what the state of Tennessee is allowed to do but our pediatrician addresses reminders, calls, etc to the parents, not the children. Because again, kids can't consent but I can and do on their behalf.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The fact that they address it doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous distinction to make. The idea that you can even "solicit" a child to receive vaccines (as if they're an addictive pharmaceutical rather than a baseline preventative measure in the developed world) is farcical. Making the state's medical infrastructure contort itself to avoid referring to children in the second person reeks of politics over public health.
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    "solicit" has a few definitions. In this case, I think it's used as in "advertising" or "pitching" versus "encouraging illegal behavior" so I think they're using it neutrally vs nefarious.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Which begs the question: if it's strictly neutral, why is it a problem to tell minors that they're due for a vaccine? They're still held to the same standard of consent as before, so why the extra indirection? Even "advertising" and "pitching" are misleading framings. Vaccines are public health policy, notifying people of their eligibility falls squarely within the state's basic obligation to notify its citizens.
      - caseysoftware 5y ago
        It's not "indirection" because most kids can't consent. The ones who can - according to the Mature Minor Doctrine - must also have evaluation+approval from a healthcare provider. Adults can usually tell the difference between can, should, and must but many kids implicitly trust adults, especially those who seem important - see: Milgram experiment for an adult example - so an official postcard may be taken as a demand instead of an opportunity. Similarly, the police shouldn't talk to your kids without your consent either. It protects everyone.