~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is from PedTalk! To reply to the group, use "" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert and Lisa Wack wrote: > Dr.s Leshin and Eisen get to the heart of why I raise these objetions. > It can be summarized by a few simple statements: > 1) Health care resources are not infinite. Sooner or later, there will > be constraints on what we can or cannot do because of (gasp!) money. If a person has the money, why shouldn't he have the option of immunizing his/her kids? > 2) Priorities have to be made. Priorities as far as how a child is best cared for medically are most appropriately made by the child's parents and by their pediatrician -- not by government fiat, healthcare commission dictates or parliamentary committees. > 3) There are parties involved (i.e. pharmaceutical companies, managed > care entities, etc.) whose first priority is not necessarily the > well-being of children. I agree completely. > 4) It falls to us (pediatricians) to have an active role in how > priorities are set, with an eye to the bottom line. Otherwise, we get > bushwhacked down the road. As long as the bottom line is the health and well-being of the patient and family. > IMHO, mortality comes first, then you address morbidity, THEN "societal > costs". When caring for MY child and my patients, "societal costs" are at the bottom of the heap. > I submit that the vaccine development agenda is driven by factors more > complex than just reducing illness in children. Whatever drives their development, vaccines have been a great advance in the history of medicine and they've changed the course of history. To sum things up, I don't skimp when it comes to protecting MY patients. -- Gary M. on LI Managed Care - Caveat Emptor