“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Voices, Choices and Consequences.

Hilary Butler - Thursday, March 01, 2012

Why is it, that everyone else wants to editorialise on other people's choices?  This is an interesting question, after the last blog on the bigger picture of breastfeeding.  Do I care if people want to put artificial formula into their babies?  On the one hand, no I don't because it's their choice, but on the other hand, yes, I do, because it's my experience, that most people do that, because they have not been correctly or adequately informed about the consequences of artificial food for babies. I also "care", because at a fundamental level the best health comes from a baby's natural birth-right - the mammalian breast.  The conflict comes with what is "euphemistically" called "choice" where the pro-breast feeders are called "breastfeeding nazis". 

The debate in the Herald was concentrated on "pushiness", not fact:






So 9 out of 10 people consider that breastfeeding advocates are too pushy.  What is that poll based on?  The knowledge of fact, or.... assumption? Would that vote change, if everyone KNEW the facts?

There are many "medical" situations where choice, ethics and hypocrisy get intertwined confused, depending on your viewpoint:

A few of them are:

1)   Elective Abortions: (Without a medical reason relating to a problem with the baby) It's a woman's right to chose what happens to HER body.  She may not want to "have" to carry an unwanted baby, because it's her right to have an abortion. New Zealand legislation is essentially abortion on demand under the guise of "potential mental harm" to the mother.  The body that is carrying that baby belongs to the mother, so it's her "choice" as to what happens to the baby, which isn't part of her.... A mother's "right".  How many thousand babies are aborted in New Zealand every year?  Google it.  Paediatricians don't want to talk about those babies' rights, because the mother's choice and right is paramount, and the medical profession isn't interested in breaching those choices and "rights". 

2)  Artificial formula: It's a woman's "right" to give her baby artificial formula, because her tits are her own body and she has a right to chose whether or not she allows her baby access to what some might call a "natural birthright".  Never mind that in denying a child breastmilk (or not being able to, because the medical profession doesn't support breast milk banks) the consequences for that baby from artificial formula, are metabolic harm.  The baby has no say, and it's rights are not paramount, because paediatricians don't want to talk about that. The mother's rights, feelings and convenience are paramount, and facts are irrelevant in this discourse.

3)  Nutrition:  The medical profession knows that the majority of their patients sitting in front of them, eat a diet that is causing much of their ill-health in the first place.  These people spend lots of money sitting in doctors rooms wanting a quick fix, when the answer is actually.... in their own mouths.  The hospitals are full of fully vaccinated, very sick people, who are there partially because of their own choices.  But that's skirted around, because if every family breastfed and fed their children good food, doctors would hardly see those families.  And anyway, educating people and changing habits of a life time is "too hard"....

4)  Preventable Medical Error:  This is a slightly different area that not too many people know much about. Which reminds me, I need to write more blogs on preventable medical error than this one here.  But as a sweeping statement, lets define preventable medical error this way.  A person might go to a doctor who says, "You have X problem and this is the solution."  That person listens to what is told them about the solution, and decides that they will take the doctor's advice.  However, for reasons termed by the medical profession as "system's error", a medical person, makes a bad decision, or a surgical mistake, and that patient being treated either dies, or is permanently injured. A stuff.co page, which no longer exists, gave a New Zealand annual death toll as 750

IN USA amongst elderly alone, the monthlu total is reported as 15,000.  If someone choosing the medical option is lucky, they walk away from a preventable medical error with 100% full health.  

In the early days of discussion about preventable medical error, someone defined the issue like this:

“Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard Sterling Airline’s Flight Number 743, bound for Edinburgh. This is your captain speaking. Our flight time will be two hours, and I am pleased to report both that you have a 97% chance of reaching your destination without being significantly injured during the flight and that our chances of making a serious error during the flight, whether you are injured or not, is only 6.7%. Please fasten your seatbelts, and enjoy the flight. The weather in Edinburgh is sunny.”

Would you stay aboard? We doubt it."

The costs of preventable medical error to the individual, families and society in developed countries are HUGE.  If you want to get really scrooge-like, the costs to the New Zealand Government are also significant, because of the tax-take they are deprived of, and taxpayer money shelled out in terms of either ACC or a sickness benefit - IF... the person even gets that.

Preventable medical error is silently acceptable because, the patient made the choice to allow the doctor to do what he saw fit consenting implicitly to possible medical error, AND ....the medical profession's DECISIONS and choices are sacrosanct.  After all, the medical profession make all these mistakes while they are "doing their best". 

BUT...

 

.....when it comes to who should make the choice about vaccination, the whole deal changes.

Previously considered "ethics" and issues of "choice" and "rights" fly right out the window. 

Hypocrisy becomes rampant. Take a look at forums like TradeMe board to watch pro vaccine parents exploding in the faces of non-vaccinators, like an emotionally erupting Mt Ruapehu.

These attitudes of pro vaccine parents aren't surprising ---  because they are feeding off the carefully expressed views of the "militant" provaccine groups. 

To pinch and mangle the Herald term at the bottom of the poll - "breastfeeding nazis" - let's call all pro-vaccine vaccine zealots who get in the faces of non-vaccinators, by the term "vaccine nazis". 

By comparison - the  "breastfeeding nazis", are utterly saintly. 

The medical militants - sorry "vaccine-nazis"....  are right in your face, describing parents who chose not to vaccinate this way:

L

Show me the costings to the individual, society and taxes of lack of health, lost productivity, death and injury, when it comes to abortion, formula feeding, bad nutrition and preventable medical error.

Let's look at one medical pro vaccine group which has the biggest hand in formulating pro-vaccine public opinion.  

I call them medical militants, because they behave as if their way is the only way.  They include the likes of Drs Paul Offit, and Gregory Poland who thinks he understands nonvaccinators, when he hasn't a clue.  Both Offit and Poland appear to consider that anyone who doesn't vaccinate, is at the very least incompetent, but more likely a certifiably violent threatening lunatic, ... judging by his analysis here which I quoted from above. 

Offit and Poland are joined by others like Kirkland, who also pontificates on something with which she has limited experience.  Another medical militant is Douglas S Diekema,  who, wants to up the vaccination rate, and sue the non-vaccinators.  He states that:

and ....

 

and ....

 

(some vaccine programme if that is the case!) .... and....

 

 

Diekema did balk at removing personal exemptions, lest that make martyrs of dissenters, and twisting the arms of the rest of the populace, much harder.  They are joined in this legal debate by Lantos, who wants to remove personal exemptions and mandate total compliance without choice.

After all, vaccines are supposed to protect the person they are injected into... and (pardon the slight sarcasm) plainly, people who go to university and have degrees, appear to be far less "rational" than people who vaccinate primarily because they operate on the nike motto of:

....because the doctor said so???

To the dismay of all these militant medics, a very large proportion of parents who chose not to vaccinate have university degrees and higher education.

Here's the key hypocrisy which ALL parents should note.

By invoking the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD with regard to vaccines...., the opinions and "choices" of the medical profession

suddenly....

 

takes precedence over the choices and decisions of parents.

 

Militant vaccine promoters don't see the hypocrisy of the medical profession's silent non-advocacy for a child's rights when it comes to abortion, formula feeding, bad nutrition and preventable medical error. 

The medical profession do their best not to admit to "system errors" or deaths and maimings by preventable medical error, just as they will walk over a bed of searing coals in bare feet, rather than ever admit that Gardasil, or any other vaccines, are maiming and killing girls and boys all over the world.  To them, ALL vaccines are safe, and everything that happens after vaccines has some other cause, but never the vaccines.

The militants, who suddenly want to call the shots for our children.... who call us "denialists", say that there should be no vaccine exemptions, and those who don't vaccinate should be dragged through court, .....because they believe that our decision to NOT vaccinate, affects other people? 

Hello?

What  are the costs in terms of lost lives of elective abortions.  The only "positive" contributions of abortion to society (if you can call them that) is to give doctors who perform abortions, more work and more money.  And...most of the dead babies never have to live with families who otherwise wouldn't have looked after them or worse, would have abused them.

What are the costs to the individual and society in terms of formula feeding?  See my blog.  The medical system doesn't talk about that, because even today, they support the formula manufacturers, just as they once fronted cigarette advertisements.  Furthermore, formula feeding, gives the medical profession more work, and more money, and in a country where Fonterra rules, is big trade with China..

What are the costs to the individual and society in terms of preventable medical error?  Shhhhh.  I mustn't talk about that, because the medical profession only kills and maims people because they love them, and are in the process, "doing their best".

What are the costs to the individual and society in terms of non-vaccination?  Nothing, if the vaccine manufacturer's advertisements are correct. Do travellers sue vaccine manufacturers when their travelling vaccines don't protect them against endemic diseases in the countries in which they are travelling?  Not usually.

Why is that? because travellers "choose" to travel, therefore voluntarily take the risk that a vaccine might not work, but have the vaccine on the basis that they are told it will work.

The arguments of the militant medics about suing non-vaccinators is that the domiciled vaccinated - who are supposedly protected, can't "run away" from the unvaccinated, therefore their "freedom" is threatened.

So why are the vaccine "nazis" threatening non-vaccinators?

Becasue the thought that non-vaccinators might have some valid arguments can NEVER be acknowledged, or the hypocrisy of the medical profession as a whole, might be exposed.

Therefore non-vaccinators must eventually be "eliminated".

It's all about "control".  When it suits.

Bookmark and Share