4 ms·

This is beyond stupid. You can't explain something, so you ban the person from having a say so. I'm terrible afraid of people thinking that this is the way to g

by ddalex 12y ago

This is beyond stupid. You can't explain something, so you ban the person from having a say so. I'm terrible afraid of people thinking that this is the way to go. As a doctor, which I am not, I would've said: the danger of your children dying or being crippled by a preventable disease is about 1000 times the risk of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Furthermore, I can guarantee that the vaccine will not cause autism. This is what I tell my "anti vac" acquittance, because I can't say I'm friends with morons. But being a moron doesn't preclude the right to understand what's actually happening and what the risks are when making a decision, even if you refrained in the past to educate yourself. But it's hard to educate, so the author would just ban the discussion altogether. You, the author, are no better than the ones to which you would ban explanations and discussion.

avmich 12y ago
I think you didn't get the story.
mpweiher 12y ago
You didn't get the point at all. "You can't explain something," That's exactly not it. The doctor wanted to explain the facts, with the leaflet. Sacha wanted a simplistic assurance that wasn't possible, and refused point blank to have it explained to her.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Those were the words she used, which could be entirely different from her actual reasoning that she didn't feel like talking about. And if this were any kind of world where doctors overrule you because "your argument is invalid" then she will of course not be forthcoming with her doctor ever. She will instead learn the magic words "oh, Johnny had a bad reaction to a vaccine at his previous doctor in Canada." The doctor's office is not a courtroom or an arrest where everything you say can and should be used against you. I'm reminded of people who think it would be awesome to bug lawyer's offices or doctor's offices or confessionals to ferret out crime. It will work the first time, but after that you have totally destroyed trust so you haven't gained yourself anything and the public has lost a place to sensitive discuss issues with people they trust.
  - mpweiher 12y ago
    "Those were the words she used, which could be entirely different from her actual reasoning that she didn't feel like talking about." Er, no. She is a fictional character in a parable, entirely the author's creation. I think it's safe to assume that the words "she" used were the ones "she" intended to use.
shurcooL 12y ago
> As a doctor, which I am not, I would've said: the danger of your children dying or being crippled by a preventable disease is about... Did you read the part where the doctor tried the same thing and she cut him off? > “As I said, there is always a small risk, but if you look, you will see that this is less than the probability of...” > Sacha held up her hand. > “Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.”
Spooky23 12y ago
The question to respond back to such a person is: "Can you assure me that you will get little Willow home safely after this appointment?" Demanding a yes/no answer to a question that isn't yes/no doesn't make a point, except that you already made an opinion and are paying a copay so that you can ask a doctor rhetorical questions. The fact is, likelihood that the parent in this story smashes the minivan into something on the way home is probably higher than the chances of any ill effect from the vaccine. There is a line that can be crossed where you take away people's ability to make decisions. This happens via court order for folks with religious convictions against blood transfusions, for example. Anti-vaxing is certainly reckless and IMO ignorant, but I don't know if it crosses that line.
- danielweber 12y ago
  There is a line that can be crossed where you take away people's ability to make decisions. This happens via court order Yes, most disturbing in the story was how the woman took her children into a place she thought was trustworthy and she could talk openly, but instead her words were used against her to rob her of agency. Antivaxxers can be pretty horrible, but there can always be something worse.
OrwellianChild 12y ago
Despite being adamantly pro-vaccine myself, I had a very similar reaction... "Making decisions for people" doesn't strike me as an acceptable solution unless the harm you are doing has pretty serious externalities. The "science ban" is nothing more than excessive and fanciful retribution to was was most assuredly a frustrating conversation. "You are more likely to crash your car on the way home from this office than experience harm from this vaccine." is a pretty succinct explanation invoking relative risk. I understand the frustrations that lead to doctor wanting to write this sort of fan fiction... I just wish they'd try harder to make the "hero" doctor from the story a more sympathetic character by trying much, much harder to sway the mother's point of view.

by ddalex 12y ago

avmich 12y ago

I think you didn't get the story.

mpweiher 12y ago

You didn't get the point at all. "You can't explain something," That's exactly not it. The doctor wanted to explain the facts, with the leaflet. Sacha wanted a simplistic assurance that wasn't possible, and refused point blank to have it explained to her.

danielweber 12y ago
Those were the words she used, which could be entirely different from her actual reasoning that she didn't feel like talking about. And if this were any kind of world where doctors overrule you because "your argument is invalid" then she will of course not be forthcoming with her doctor ever. She will instead learn the magic words "oh, Johnny had a bad reaction to a vaccine at his previous doctor in Canada." The doctor's office is not a courtroom or an arrest where everything you say can and should be used against you. I'm reminded of people who think it would be awesome to bug lawyer's offices or doctor's offices or confessionals to ferret out crime. It will work the first time, but after that you have totally destroyed trust so you haven't gained yourself anything and the public has lost a place to sensitive discuss issues with people they trust.
- mpweiher 12y ago
  "Those were the words she used, which could be entirely different from her actual reasoning that she didn't feel like talking about." Er, no. She is a fictional character in a parable, entirely the author's creation. I think it's safe to assume that the words "she" used were the ones "she" intended to use.

shurcooL 12y ago

> As a doctor, which I am not, I would've said: the danger of your children dying or being crippled by a preventable disease is about... Did you read the part where the doctor tried the same thing and she cut him off? > “As I said, there is always a small risk, but if you look, you will see that this is less than the probability of...” > Sacha held up her hand. > “Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.”

Spooky23 12y ago

The question to respond back to such a person is: "Can you assure me that you will get little Willow home safely after this appointment?" Demanding a yes/no answer to a question that isn't yes/no doesn't make a point, except that you already made an opinion and are paying a copay so that you can ask a doctor rhetorical questions. The fact is, likelihood that the parent in this story smashes the minivan into something on the way home is probably higher than the chances of any ill effect from the vaccine. There is a line that can be crossed where you take away people's ability to make decisions. This happens via court order for folks with religious convictions against blood transfusions, for example. Anti-vaxing is certainly reckless and IMO ignorant, but I don't know if it crosses that line.

danielweber 12y ago
There is a line that can be crossed where you take away people's ability to make decisions. This happens via court order Yes, most disturbing in the story was how the woman took her children into a place she thought was trustworthy and she could talk openly, but instead her words were used against her to rob her of agency. Antivaxxers can be pretty horrible, but there can always be something worse.

OrwellianChild 12y ago

Despite being adamantly pro-vaccine myself, I had a very similar reaction... "Making decisions for people" doesn't strike me as an acceptable solution unless the harm you are doing has pretty serious externalities. The "science ban" is nothing more than excessive and fanciful retribution to was was most assuredly a frustrating conversation. "You are more likely to crash your car on the way home from this office than experience harm from this vaccine." is a pretty succinct explanation invoking relative risk. I understand the frustrations that lead to doctor wanting to write this sort of fan fiction... I just wish they'd try harder to make the "hero" doctor from the story a more sympathetic character by trying much, much harder to sway the mother's point of view.