To be or not to be…vaccinated
Vaccination: between emotional and rational decision,between individual and collective welfare
The latest developments, namely the development of the new pandemic influenza (AH1N1), brought to light the large number of people, from various social environments, who fear the risks associated with treatments prescribed by modern medicine, preferring instead to rely on so-called „natural medicine” or even on the „divine will”.
I am sure that communicators can explain better than me what a single word, addressed to „the emotional hemisphere”, has one hundred times more impact than an equal volume of arguments addressed to the „rational hemisphere”. Dar asta nu înseamă că decizia emoțională este întotdeauna cea mai bună, even as a fully informed decision is not a priori the best, as it may be taken when it's too late.
A pseudo-information, one according to which , let's say, a German national died after being vaccinated, is much stronger than recommendations from institutions in charge of public health (World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, etc.). I call it pseudo-information because it suggests a link between the two events, when, most of the time, the only real link is the occurrence one before the other, just like the fact that that person woke up in the morning. Who can tell, maybe there is a causal relationship between waking up in the morning and dying (maybe my bosses will find out this way the risks I expose myself to, daily, to get to work…).
I agree with the theory that says that everyone must make his/her own decision, informed. But what do we do with those that can not make their own decisions, such as children? An example of this is the HPV vaccination, that prevents cervical cancer. For someone who already has cancer, it's too late to get vaccinated. It's equally true that, if he or she will not have cancer and die of other cause, the vaccine was useless. What will be in the heart of a parent who did not make the appropriate decision at the right time?
In cases of diseases with rapid progression and spread, those whose work has a strong impact on others play a very special role. For example, those working the surveillance of the national energy system, or air traffic controllers. It is fair to impose the vaccine on them? But could it be right to let them refuse the vaccine, and thus risk all kinds of syncope of the life we call „civilized” or accidents of all sorts?
Even in the case of a parent who made the wrong decision, refusing vaccination for his daughter , or in the case of an adult who refused vaccination and had been under intensive care for a few days, is it right for all of us to pay for the fault of a single individual?
It is easy to understand that everything comes down to money, This is also the explanation why the treatments available in rich countries are quite different than those applied in poor countries. And then I wonder: is it right for all of us to pay tens of thousands of euros to treat someone who has previously refused treatment worth 10 euros?Someone else may be deprived of a chance to live, precisely because there would be no money left for him. And so we see a sick baby's picture in the newspapers again, together with a bank account number.
Although tough, I believe that the rule applied by some insurance companies in the U.S. is fair, that is, if you refuse the vaccine offered for free, you are informed that, in case you will get the disease,, you'll have to pay for the treatment out of your own pocket. I'm sure many of those who refuse vaccination, if they had to pay thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for hospitalization, medicines and medical care, would reconsider the option.
Similar:
- MINUTES demistificata: ca sa stim!
- A lost letter but intercepted
- What we learn volcano
- Integration of minorities: limits of hypocrisy
- Television and candidates: a user's guide during elections
Other published in: Current issues, Information, Society
Other published cobalt
English
RomĂąnÄ
but what do you think of the investigation now in progress. I have passed me chills when I read what it says German MP. it's hard to believe they are bogus and that only smoke without fire.
http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-viata-sanatoasa/wolfgang-wodarg-gripa-a-au-organizat-psihoza-532313.html
Dear Author, as you probably know there have been times when taking a patient blood was then considered by the medical community, almost unanimously, an effective treatment. Treaties have been written about it, is taught in universities, the most famous physicians using this method, nimeni now in-ar fi contrazis. If there were back then WHO, would have recommended taking blood. And yet, today we know that was stupid. Medicine has evolved in the meantime, The doctors have changed their beliefs. However, then, there was sufficient data and information for people to realize. What makes you think that medicine has now reached an all-sufficient science, that can not be wrong, still has not learned anything new? What makes you think that in about five hundred years, some of the treatments, methods, most part, doctors' beliefs now will not be shown to be nonsense? Sau ca, de perform, Side effects of HPV vaccines will not be kind, pe termen lung, unpredictable?
Si 2) I think I agree with that doctor on TV. There has never happened to you you go without the flu to go to the doctor and take medicine without? Only teas, frectii si alte leacuri asa-zis babesti? If the Multora intamplat. Iar tot swine flu or flu this, to her that would not work, for instance, gargling with salt?
Otherwise, I liked how you write. It's interesting but I do not know if it's controversy and a doctor here to give their opinion…
I do not want you to argue or disagree on rubbings and gargling. Each is free to do as he beheaded.
I do not want to offend logic trying to prove that there will be no progress, nici un element now, from now on medicine.
It is very unlikely that large-scale treatments (like seasonal influenza vaccination) have significant adverse effects have not been discovered. If they are undiscovered effects, these are some that rarely occur in countries that have health systems with well-developed statistical evidence.
Very nice two case, just as you start from the premise that what is said about the avian population that is hundred percent correct-n. Population but, has every reason to doubt, your cel Putin 3 motive:
1. Even doctors come with different views (ex.deunazi gave to a doctor who said that TVR gargling with salt is as good as dpdv tamiflu H1N1 prevention, Many say that the flu is a very easy compared to the “Classical”, etc.)
2. Higher international institutions (OMS etc.) pe care le citezi sunt si ele conduse politic. Standpoint of health, a lot of additives or beverages like Coca-Cola should have been banned from the market d emult, dar nu au fost, because they are too large interests at stake. So even the guys I think you can not just blindly.
3. Highest risk with this flu is not one medical, ci economic, As you have heard (to un medic, I think if) pe spunand TV. That swine flu is more dangerous or higher mortality rate than ordinary flu, So that's why not to make fuss. Motivul e ca, fiind a virus new, people have antibodies to it and it's easy to spread risk, that is to be ff people sick at the same time, ie ff many people who miss the service and have the right to be paid on those days. So all the money we get. That was the main concern. Otherwise, those who are already sick and antibodies after they pass, in a few days, Can I replace it without any problems for those who fell ill between, so it remains one in total human resource shortages at a time…
1. It's not worth our time to eat that “doctoriĆŁÄ”, more than in the context of discussions about the medical education / professionalism / placebo effect.
2. Ref. the political leadership, Of course the conspiracy theory is attractive; what about that comment I. Referitor tail, in small amounts do not think that is more harmful than, for instance, simply to breathe in Bucharest.
3. Highest risk with this is that nine influenza virus could undergo mutations that would increase the virulence and contagiozitatea. Regarding the costs of influenza, ai dreptate, decizie of trafficked / prevent the time can be “translated” in terms of economic / financial.