[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Health See other Health Articles Title: California doctor critical of vaccines is punished for exempting 2-year-old boy from all childhood immunizations In a decision that could signal how California’s fierce vaccine debates will play out in the coming years, the Medical Board of California has ordered 35 months’ probation for Dr. Bob Sears, an Orange County pediatrician well-known for being sympathetic to parents opposed to vaccines. In 2016, the board threatened to revoke Sears’ medical license for wrongly writing a doctor’s note for a 2-year-old boy that exempted him from all childhood vaccinations. This week, the medical board settled on a lesser punishment. Sears can keep practicing medicine but will be required to take 40 hours of medical education courses a year, as well as an ethics class, and also be monitored by a fellow doctor. He also must notify all hospital and medical facilities where he practices of the order and is not allowed to supervise physician assistants or nurse practicioners. The doctor’s supporters expressed relief that he was not more severely punished, while critics were pleased that the state did more than simply reprimand him, as some had feared. Paid Post What Is This? A Q&A With Basketball Pro Skylar Diggins-Smith A Q&A With Basketball Pro Skylar Diggins-Smith Athlete Talks Shop See More Sponsored Content by Puma in partnership with Refinery 29 “It’s not a trivial decision, it’s not a slap on the hand,” said UC Hastings law professor Dorit Reiss. “It really is strongly limiting his ability to practice … he’s a doctor under supervision now.” Sears found himself in hot water because, according to the medical board, he wrote a vaccine exemption for a young boy without obtaining even basic medical information, such as the child’s history of vaccines. He took the boy’s mother at her word when she said her son lost urinary function and went limp in response to previous immunizations, according to the filing. Sears settled his case so he would not have to go to trial. Probation is the most common punishment for doctors in California accused of wrongdoing. In the last fiscal year, the board took away 57 licenses, while putting 197 doctors on probation. “Many parents, myself included, are relieved that Dr. Sears will maintain his practice and continue to serve his patients that rely on him,” said Rebecca Estepp, who is part of an advocacy group that supports alternative vaccine schedules. Sears’ battle, however, does not appear to be over. In a Facebook post Friday, he denied any wrongdoing. “Isn’t it my job to listen to my patients and believe what a parent says happened to her baby? Isn’t that what all doctors do with their patients?” Sears wrote. “After all, I don’t want a child to receive a medical treatment that could cause more harm. I am going to first do no harm, every time.” Sears also said that the medical board has four more cases lined up accusing him of writing improper vaccine exemptions. Officials from the medical board said investigations are confidential and that they could not confirm there are more cases against Sears. “It seems there is an attempt to keep me on probation for the rest of my medical career,” Sears wrote. Vaccine exemptions have become a central part of the immunization debate in California in recent years. After a measles outbreak that originated in Disneyland, California passed a tough inoculation law in 2015. The new law, known as SB 277, prevents parents from citing religious or other personal beliefs to get out of vaccinating their children. Now children must have a doctor’s note if they don’t have their shots. The law makes California one of only three states to require that parents have a medical reason for not vaccinating their kids. Under the new regulations, doctors determine what qualifies as a medical exemption. Some public health advocates have criticized doctors who have advertised online that they will write exemptions for children with asthma or skin conditions such as psoriasis. Many looked to the Sears case to see how aggressively California would patrol doctors who are writing exemptions for children. “It struck me as possibly the best decision that was going to come down … I don’t believe that the board really wants to get involved in this,” said Dr. Jay Gordon, a pediatrician in Santa Monica who supports Sears. “I think the law is pretty clear in this issue about medical exemptions — it’s in the hands of the doctor who knows the patient best." Thousands of parents who had been citing personal beliefs to get out of immunizations took their kids to get vaccinated after the law took effect, pushing up overall vaccination rates. But some schools continue to have dangerously low rates of vaccinated children, in large part because many students got new medical exemptions. Catherine Martin, of the pro-vaccine advocacy group California Immunization Coalition, said she expected the Sears’ decision would make other doctors think twice about writing exemptions without verifying medical records. “I hope it gives them pause and helps them understand that this is not acceptable,” Martin said. “I think it’s a sign that the medical board takes these infractions seriously.” In addition to the complaint that launched the Sears investigation, more than 50 others have been filed against physicians who are accused of improperly writing exemptions in the past three years, according to the state medical board. Roughly half have been investigated and closed without any disciplinary action, while the others are still pending. Sears said Friday that he was tired of keeping quiet over the last two years while his case was underway. He added that he would fight until there are no more mandatory vaccination laws. “It alarms me to see any medical board questioning exemptions that are given to families who have suffered severe vaccine reactions,” he said. “More doctors need to stand up for their patients, especially the ones who are most vulnerable. I’m going to continue to stand for these children.” 1:50 p.m.: This article was updated throughout with additional reaction and background. 10:35 a.m.: This article was updated with reaction from Sears and others. This article was originally published at 7:30 a.m. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
This is just brutal. Damn these tyrants to hell! Vaccines are just another jew racket - -Salk and Sabin were both kikes (Sabin = Saperstein).
..19. But you yourselves perfectly well know that TO PRODUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE EXPRESSION OF SUCH WISHES BY ALL THE NATIONS IT IS INDISPENSABLE TO TROUBLE IN ALL COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE'S RELATIONS WITH THEIR GOVERNMENTS SO AS TO UTTERLY EXHAUST HUMANITY WITH DISSENSION, HATRED, STRUGGLE, ENVY AND EVEN BY THE USE OF TORTURE, BY STARVATION, BY THE INOCULATION OF DISEASES, BY WANT, SO THAT THE "GOYIM" SEE NO OTHER ISSUE THAN TO TAKE REFUGE IN OUR COMPLETE SOVEREIGNTY IN MONEY AND IN ALL ELSE. THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION [Sion] This is just brutal. Damn these tyrants to hell! Vaccines are just another jew racket So is USA, INC. "...lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997: Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108: “Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“ Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146. Continued… “…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“ Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). “The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“ Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953). Continued… “This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.“ Also, this case law states… “The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.” Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645. (SOURCE: caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1486817.html) .... "The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”....
#5. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#4)
I once played music at a wedding in a big Methodone church. Asked the minister why he was just sitting there up front afterward while they too pictures. "I'm waiting for them to come up and sign the marriage license," he said. "What I've just done is meaningless until they do that."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||