To be fair, those were a thing before the vaccine became available, and worked quite well.
How did that work well? Not only did you force your child to get chicken pox which has serious side effects...but now those same children as adults can get shingles.
If you eradicate chicken pox, eventually shingles gets eradicated too.
How did that work well? Not only did you force your child to get chicken pox which has serious side effects...but now those same children as adults can get shingles.
If you eradicate chicken pox, eventually shingles gets eradicated too.
Keep in mind I said BEFORE the vaccine was available. I'm not saying it's a good idea now.
__________________
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity" -Abraham Lincoln
Re: Red forever - Not sure how old you are but in the time before chicken pox vaccine, it was very normal for everyone to 'want' their kids to all get chicken pox and sometimes even make sure all your kids got it at the same time so you only had to deal with it once.
Obviously chicken pox is far less serious than the measles, so in that case it did work pretty well.
Re: Red forever - Not sure how old you are but in the time before chicken pox vaccine, it was very normal for everyone to 'want' their kids to all get chicken pox and sometimes even make sure all your kids got it at the same time so you only had to deal with it once.
Obviously chicken pox is far less serious than the measles, so in that case it did work pretty well.
Sorry, that does not resonate with me at all!!! That was not a common thing for any disease when I was growing up...so measles, mumps, whatever, I know of no-one in my community who purposely got their children sick. What purpose did it ever serve? That you can't get chicken pox again? duh. It should never be a good idea to purposely expose your children to anything that has physical consquences that come with contagious diseases.
And I am old enough to have watched hockey when it was only the Original 6 in the NHL.
Arbitrator in Ontario rules mother has right to keep her kids, believing an "anti-vaccination" expert, and ordering her husband to pay the court costs.
Quote:
“Choosing not to vaccinate is not illegal, negligent nor immoral. It is a personal choice,” wrote lawyer Herschel Fogelman in his arbitration decision last year. “I am unable to find any risk to (the children) if they remain unvaccinated. Further, I am satisfied on the evidence the vaccines may pose additional risk to them.
Quote:
In fact, while the case was being heard, both children contracted whooping cough — or pertussis — one of the diseases covered by standard childhood vaccinations
Arbitrator in Ontario rules mother has right to keep her kids, believing an "anti-vaccination" expert, and ordering her husband to pay the court costs.
Trout, do you know from personal experience if the Bar Association would look at something like this as grounds for any kind of punitive measure? The guy made a decision clearly based on junk science and is putting both the kids and the greater public at risk because of it.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Trout, do you know from personal experience if the Bar Association would look at something like this as grounds for any kind of punitive measure? The guy made a decision clearly based on junk science and is putting both the kids and the greater public at risk because of it.
I think that is a slippery slope. Judges make bad decisions all of the time. Maybe in a case of extreme malpractice, otherwise I think appeals are the proper avenue.
Now, a "binding arbitration" may be hard to appeal by its very nature, but I'm sure it must be possible. Corsi or Vlad could say more about that.
My father was an esteemed Engineer and an expert witness in many complicated trials. He was often annoyed that Judges (and lawyers) were making difficult decisions about very complicated and technical matters that they have no expertise in. But, how can we find Judges that are experts in technical fields? I think we are left with Judges being informed by expert witnesses, properly certified and cross-examined.
Re: Red forever - Not sure how old you are but in the time before chicken pox vaccine, it was very normal for everyone to 'want' their kids to all get chicken pox and sometimes even make sure all your kids got it at the same time so you only had to deal with it once.
Obviously chicken pox is far less serious than the measles, so in that case it did work pretty well.
You know that when you get chicken pox you have it forever, right? It can come back as shingles. And you don't want shingles.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shazam For This Useful Post:
I think that is a slippery slope. Judges make bad decisions all of the time. Maybe in a case of extreme malpractice, otherwise I think appeals are the proper avenue.
Now, a "binding arbitration" may be hard to appeal by its very nature, but I'm sure it must be possible. Corsi or Vlad could say more about that.
My father was an esteemed Engineer and an expert witness in many complicated trials. He was often annoyed that Judges (and lawyers) were making difficult decisions about very complicated and technical matters that they have no expertise in. But, how can we find Judges that are experts in technical fields? I think we are left with Judges being informed by expert witnesses, properly certified and cross-examined.
If we assume that the arbitrator is devoid of common sense and critical appraisal skills, do you view this as more of a failure by the fathers side to discredit the expert witnesses? Is there even an opportunity to do that during an arbitration process like this?
The whole "expert witness" tool in law really seems like a bit of scam to be honest. At its core it's just mercenaries willing to say whatever the legal team wants them to say at the right price.
The whole "expert witness" tool in law really seems like a bit of scam to be honest. At its core it's just mercenaries willing to say whatever the legal team wants them to say at the right price.
Sure they're under oath, but the whole point of giving expert testimony is to give your opinion which is inherently subjective and therefore near impossible to prove perjury.
How effective is cross examination when its performed by someone who isn't an expert in the field?
The system absolutely incentivizes a biased testimony depending on who's paying the bill.
The arbitrator probably can't look at external factors either and must base his/her decision on the facts presented. If the father's lawyer didn't call their own expert or do a good job on cross examination, then that's the real problem.
Edit; Just saw that the father didn't have a lawyer or call witnesses....shoulda had a lawyer.
"Unlike him, his wife had a lawyer at the hearing and called two witnesses."