"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...

[...]

Scaremonger. The likelihood of an infant/child who has diligent
parents
and is not subjected to to "high risk" persons--e.g., the Malkins'
son--contracting hep B is no doubt so ridiculously small as to be
laughable.

*I'm* the scaremonger? That's a laugh. The other vectors *aren't
identified*. How you know that you're being diligent in protecting
your child against these vectors if you don't even know what they are?

Hep B is transmitted via body fluids; ergo, diligent parents will make
sure their infant/child isn't engaging in unprotected sex, sharing
needles, or
being exposed to the body fluids of others (of unknown hep B status) in
other ways.

Why should the doctor be compelled to keep a patient whose parents
don't follow his recommendations?

Who said, or even suggested, he should?

The author's entire thesis appears to be about the unfairness of the
doctor kicking her kid out of his practice. She referred to it as a
"threat".

Huh? Her "entire thesis" is that parents are pressured to get what, for
them, are unnecessary vaccines! (A subthesis is that pediatricians are
unthinking parrots.) She didn't say anything about "unfairness." I've
no doubt that the Malkins, as libertarians, agree that a physician has
the right to refuse to treat anyone. As for "threat," my dictionary's
(Am. Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.) first
definition for it is "An expression of an intention to inflict pain,
injury, evil, or punishment." I don't doubt that the Malkins'
pediatician, if he's as egotistical as many I've encountered, felt that
they'd somehow be pained/punished if they "defected"!

I can tell you *I'm* in no hurry to
take care of a kid with Hib meningitis, nor invasive pneumococcal
disease nor pertussis.

This author is free to find a doctor who will allow her daffy
decisions to usurp his training and better sense. No one is
holding a
gun to her head to *make* her get her child vaccinated; why does
she
have her panties in a twist because this particular doctor won't
play
her game?

It doesn't sound to me like she has "her panties in a twist" at all.
What did she write that gave you the impression she was bothered by
having to engage a pediatrician more amenable to her views? Sure,
she's
"bitter" and obviously ticked off by the doctor's condescending
attitude
(good for her!), but I would think she's more than happy to find
another
pediatrician

What did she write? Let's see...the "coercion", her "bitterness",
calling the Hep B "politically correct", being "threatened"...the fact
that she even bothered to write an entire article in the first place
leads me to believe she has a bee in her bonnet over this issue.

She's undoubtedly (and justifiably) concerned that *all* parents are
being pushed to have their kids vaccinated against a disease that isn't
widespread among their contacts or easily (relative to most of the
diseases for which kids are vaccinated) contracted, one that's simple to
avoid by taking other (simple) precautions.

It's called choice: She chose not to have her child fully
immunized...the doctor chose not to have her child as a patient.
Pretty straighforward, I say.

Yes. So? Looks like both parties will get what they want.

Exactly.

Again, so? Sounds like you're the one whose shorts are knotted, Mark...