My first read this morning came up with this about a young boy who suffered a fractured eye socket with possible eye injury while playing cricket. He was taken to the local country (where legend has it that the people are so much nicer than city denizens) doctor who refused to examine him because he was unvaccinated, still waiting for the newly-approved Novavax for kids.

It took travelling a considerable distance and some hours to get the boy to a hospital with an emergency department, where he was treated.

Disgraceful!

An Australian child health poll found among 5% of
children who were not up to date with the
vaccinations, one in six had been refused care.
Particularly those under the age of six years.

Anthea Rhodes from Melbourne's Royal Children's
Hospital said the finding was a concern.

"At the Royal Children's Hospital we are clear in our
position that all children have equal right to access
health care, regardless of their vaccination status."

Unfortunately, we're told that one out of ten Australian
parents still believe that vaccines can cause autism and
another 30% are unsure.

They need to speak to their health-care providers to keep
them up-to-date.

It is concerning that this is happening in Australia and
it needs to be acted on immediately.

'Concern' is a rather mild reaction. 'Outrage' is what I have in mind in this particular case at least. Broken eye socket and possible damaged sight. And the kid's parents had every intention of getting their son vaccinated - when the 'geniuses' responsible got around to providing the child-friendly vaccine.

I respect and admire the personnel in hospital emergency departments, who were this lad's saviour, but PC language (concern) and bringing up what some parents think about vaccination by a member of hospital staff is rather irrelevant and detracts from the serious, and unacceptable, actions of a GP.

I have no personal interest in this occurrence, and it's unlikely to affect you either, Foxy. So thanks for the interest. We both care about kids.

ttbn,

Thank you for explaining your feelings on this incident.
They're feelings that I also share. My younger brother
and his families (daughters, sons, and grandchildren)) are all
anti-vaccers. And I am worried about them. Very worried.
But what can I do? He simply won't listen to anything I have
to say. And of course I agree with you. A hospital turning
away a child is disgraceful to say the least. It should not
and must not happen.

Words of Jesus might be relevant:

Matthew 5:[33] Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: [34] But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: [35] Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
[36] Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. [37] But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Don't make oaths. Just be honest in your speech.

Why would you consult a doctor re vaccination Foxy.

If the doctor in this little story is so poorly informed on the subject that he/she thinks the kids vaccination status will have any effect on the likely hood of them becoming infected, you would be better consulting the garbage collector. At least you would know their opinion was probably garbage.

Hasbeen,

I believe in being better safe than sorry and so
I go to a medical practitioner for medical advice.
If you believe you can get advice from better sources.
Good luck to you.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for the quotes.

Coomunication must be
HOT - that is -
Honest, Open, and Two-way.

It's not always easy to achieve. Especially for me.
I often tend to get my expressions wrong and I also
waffle on.

Hippocratic has become hypocritic !

It wasn't that long ago that the woke were claiming that universal health care was a human right.

Now its only a right if you submit to governmental directives. How long before the smoker is denied health care... the obese, the alcoholic?

We, as a society, have lost so much in this WuFlu hysteria.

I think there is more to this story than is being told. The child should have been taken to an emergency clinic not a Drs surgery if there was an injury. There he could have been scanned and treated. Drs can only give diagnosis, injections and perscriptions not deal with injuries. Emergency and Trauma clinics deal with injuries, I do not believe the Dr refused to treat based on not being vaccinated, he / she did not have the equipment to deal with the injury. They could have given the vaccine if they had it available, to me the story is false information.

Josephus doesn't believe the story. Why anyone make it up? Who would be bothered to do that?

Maybe Josephus is right. I don't know why anyone would make up the story, but everything one reads in the media is not true.

It's pretty obvious why someone would make up the story: to suit their political agenda.

Over the last decade, political agendas have been served by thousands of stories - getting a large following is much easier when you don't have to stick to the truth. Many are lies from start to finish, but usually having a grain of truth in them makes them seem more plausible, and I suspect that's what happened here.

Of course it could be that my suspicions are wrong and it's all true. But Josephus's explanation makes far more sense.

On face value, if true the incident is appalling. But there are legitimate reasons to question the story.

BTW; it is a basic human right to medical treatment.

david f

I didn’t mention the media. Had I said that I was acquainted with the lad's grandparents, Josephus still wouldn't have believe what happened. He can believe or not believe it; the facts won't change.

ttbn, if you are personality acquainted with the case as you say, I will take it you are honest enough not to make it up.

I believe the story but not the facts as presented. Doctors do not deal with physical injuries in their practise, a physical injury needs Emergency Hospital Clinic attention. Obviously, the child needed more than the Dr could perform at his clinic. The Dr could have given him a vaccine injection in the clinic, but the Dr did not have the vaccine.
These points I read in the original post.

The parents of the injured child expected the local Dr to perform more than he was equipt to do at his Clinic. The parents have misrepresented the Dr in a public statement due to their expectations. If you have a broken bone [eye socket] do not go to the local Dr go to emergency or a Trauma clinic where they have the equipment to deal with the trauma.

My wife recently fell and injured her ribs, we wanted to check if they were fractured so we went off to the Emergency Clinic at the Hospital to Xray and the Dr there assure her it was only bruising and need no further attention other than bruise treatment. Fractures need a trauma clinic or Hospital Emergency where they can access and deal with the damage.

Josephus believes "the story but not the facts as presented". What on Earth does that mean?

"The parents of the injured child expected the local Dr to perform more than he was equipt (sic) to do at his Clinic", so Josephus assumes.

We are talking about a country town without a hospital. Worried, frightened parents shouldn't try to get initial advice from the local doctor? And couldn't the doctor have examined this boy's injury and given advice that he should be taken to a hospital?

As for this particular useless specimen of doctoring vaccinating the boy, (which would not have any immediate effect), most doctors, including mine in a capital city, don't do it anymore because there is not enough recompense from the government; and Josephus is apparently unaware of the supply problems.

Not satisfied, Josephus goes on to libel the parents by stating that: "The parents have misrepresented the Dr in a public statement due to their expectations."

Where and when did they do this, Josephus? Aren't you lucky that you can cringe behind anonymity when you make wild statements that could see you in court if you could be identified

ttbn,
Fact 1. You read a story someone had reported.
Fact 2. A young boy had a fractured eye socket from a sports injury.
Fact 3. He was taken to the local country doctor.
Fact 4. Had to travel a considerable distance and some hours to get the boy to a hospital with an emergency department, where he was treated.

In question: did the local Dr REFUSE TO TREAT the child because he was unvaccinated? Then stated the doctor was waiting for Novavax for kids.

It is this section of the report where interpretation is given by the report of not understanding the Dr. The fact is there was a fracture the local Dr could do little about it except give him pain relief. The local Dr may have refused to do anything regarding a fractured eye socket because he did not have the equipment to risk touching a broken eyesocket because if there was damage to the eye touching a fractured eye socket could have caused total blindness if the broken socket were contributing to damage to the eyeball. For the Dr to touch it could have resulted in lawsuits if he had contributed to his blindness.
MORE FACTS FROM THE DR REQUIRED WHY HE REFUSED.

http://twitter.com/CaldronPool/status/1488365477407563777

Unvaccinated parents banned from seeing their kids in hospital.
Blackmailing them into obedience.

mhaze. "It wasn't that long ago that the woke were claiming that universal health care was a human right.

Now its only a right if you submit to governmental directives. How long before the smoker is denied health care... the obese, the alcoholic?"

This is an interesting subject. Should those with self induced injuries ever be treated? Where does it stop

A while back, watching a hospital emergency show I started to think it was about time these drug overdose people, who are brought in a dozen times a year should no longer be treated. I also wondered if people with a number of outstanding Ambulance bills should be carried.

But then I thought I have ridden show jumping horses, raced cars, & a number of other risky sports, where I could have been injured, including school boy football, where I was injured. Was I entitled to treatment if injured playing dangerous games. How much should the community be responsible to service our semi self inflected injuries. Do we even have the right to interfere when some one is trying to commit suicide?

I have a real problem coming to a firm conclusion on the subject, any ideas?

Hassy, you said you have had 3 heart attacks, did you receive treatment each time? Did anyone ever say; "Hey Sunshine these heart attacks are caused by your lifestyle, to many smokes, to much piss, to many meat pies, and not enough exercise."

A mate of mine couldn't get a kidney transplant until he lost weight, doctors orders. Another bloke was told he need a triple bypass, but he had to give up smoking. Didn't give up smoking, and died instead.

Recreational drug abusers should only be treated if they have private health cover !

Indy,

Does that include drinkers and smokers, afterall they are way over represented in hospital admissions.

Wrong as usual Paul.

63Kg, healthy lifestyle running a horticultural business after early retirement, & training my & the kids show jumpers. Don't drink, smoke or mix with bad women, [unfortunately].

The first was caused by just one artery being 90% blocked by plaque, none others restricted so a mystery. The second & third were caused by my ex doctor taking me off the cholesterol medication, prescribed to consolidate that plaque. I have low cholesterol because of my healthy lifestyle & diet, hence the removal I assume. Pity he didn't know enough to understand why it was prescribed by the cardiologists, it would have saved me 2 heart attacks. No further problems in 15 years, with a new doctor.

Also it's a pity the cardiologists did not bother to tell me what they were prescribing & why. I could have educated my doctor if I'd been told. It was only after the third that an Indian lady cardiologists must have decided I looked intelligent enough to bother to talk to me. Perhaps she talks to all her patients, a unique idea for the medical profession.

Otherwise 38 years between doctors visits, apart from my annual racing licence medical, which of course I pay for.

I wonder what it was that blighted your life, making you such a nasty little man.

Hassy, I thought we were Forum Friends, brothers in arms and all that rot.

I was only giving you the general assumption made when middle aged men present with a heart attack. See, such an assumption is wrong in your case. That's why I don't agree with the notion of hospital treatment being withheld based on assumptions about lifestyle such as drug taking etc. I might be cutting but I'm not nasty, sometimes things are unpalatable for some.