# Washington Residents: Don't Let Doctors Become the Thought Police



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

The State of Washington wants to expand your doctor's scope of practice beyond medicine and into the work of Inquisitor. HB 1015 will require parents seeking non-medical vaccine exemptions to seek a written signature of approval from their health care provider.

The National Vaccine Information Center has more information about this bill. 

Your doctor is not a pastor, theologian, or the Thought Police. Don't let your state give your doctor the power to grant (or withhold!) permission for you to exercise your beliefs.

I'm not a Washington resident, but I'm deeply concerned that legislation like this could permeate into other state legislatures unless Washingtonians nip it in the bud.

If you are a Washington resident, voice your opposition! Please contact your representatives


----------



## applecider (Jul 16, 2005)

Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Thank you.


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

This has been passed by the house and is now going to the senate. it's called sb 5005 now. I wrote to my senator and representative and got weak responses...my senator is one of the sponsors of the bill I swear, this makes me feel less "liberal." I just don't know how I"m going to vote next time it comes up...stuff like this makes me want to kick the democrats out I usually vote down the line democrat.

I hope everyone who cares about this writes in about it.


----------



## Otto (Oct 19, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> The State of Washington wants to expand your doctor's scope of practice beyond medicine and into the work of Inquisitor. HB 1015 will require parents seeking non-medical vaccine exemptions to seek a written signature of approval from their health care provider.


I see the burden of having to consult an HCP, but I don't see the "approval" part.


----------



## Marnica (Oct 4, 2008)

Yes - The practitionbers are not approving the exemption. Their role will be to explain the risks vs benefits of the vaccinations.

While they are not approving the exemptions, I think this is just another way to make it that much harder for parents to exercise their beliefs. Besides, the risks vs benefits of vaccinations should be addressed with a child's healthcare provider long before they reach school. It's just one more hoop to jump through and leaves parents open to more bullying and pressure by their HCP. I would hope however, that parents that are not vaccinating are already working in conjunction with a HCP that supports their desicion, so having to get this signed may not turn out to be a terrible burden.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Otto*
> 
> I see the burden of having to consult an HCP, but I don't see the "approval" part.


----------



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

How about the hassle of having to make an appt, at a time when my dc are neither sick nor due for a wcv, pay a $30 copay, sit in a germ infested waiting room, and take up an appointment slot that could be used by a child who really needs to be seen? It wastes the dr's time, and it wastes my time, it wastes my money, and it wastes my insurance company's money.


----------



## applecider (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LiLStar*
> 
> How about the hassle of having to make an appt, at a time when my dc are neither sick nor due for a wcv, pay a $30 copay, sit in a germ infested waiting room, and take up an appointment slot that could be used by a child who really needs to be seen? It wastes the dr's time, and it wastes my time, it wastes my money, and it wastes my insurance company's money.


Yes, this. In addition, I don't really have a regular hcp, as my kids don't go for well visits. I only take them if something is wrong enough that I can't fix on my own. So, I wouldn't even know where to begin to find a hcp that would agree with me, not to mention, it's none of their business anyway!


----------



## Otto (Oct 19, 2009)

There's a comparable burden for those who do vaccinate though, right? I can see where the prescribed dispensers of the pamphlet or lecture are too narrowly written--if the health department can provide the required vaccines for free (or whatever Washington State does), they should certainly be empowered to fulfill the mirror version.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/22/wa-state-vaccine-law-threatens-exemptions-and-violates-privacy.aspx


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

There is a thread on this in FYT. Bill has gone through the Senate, sent to the house, and now is going to a hearing by a committee on the 9th. On this committee, all but one already voted in favor.

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1298487/wa-please-contact-your-state-reps-senators-re-vaccine-exemptions

My biggest beef with the law is that there is no provision saying doctors have to sign. Your doctor can refuse to sign your form, causing you to have to seek out another doctor (not to mention time and money). It also is an unfair burden on those without healthcare or those with large co-pays.


----------



## Ella Enchanted (Mar 6, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Otto*
> 
> There's a comparable burden for those who do vaccinate though, right? I can see where the prescribed dispensers of the pamphlet or lecture are too narrowly written--if the health department can provide the required vaccines for free (or whatever Washington State does), they should certainly be empowered to fulfill the mirror version.


Our politicians are all about making it as difficult as possible to exercise our rights. What they're going to do is make this right one that's for those wealthy enough to buy a doctor's signature.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

So, did it pass? (i can probably guess)


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

It takes about 2 seconds to look it up.

I posted this in the FYT thread which I linked earlier:

Quote:


> The Bill is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Health and Long Term Care at 1:30 on March 17th. I don't know if that means they can take public testimony or not. But if so, if anyone can go and voice their opinion that would be great. If not, here are the committee members to write to: http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/HEA/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx


And you can easily see the progress here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1015&year=2011%23documents and here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5005&year=2011

If it passes committee and gets reintroduced on the floor it may go up for vote. The problem right now is that the people I've found that have testified pro are people like the AAP and such. The only con testifier I've found is some anti-mercury group. Which probably sounds like a bunch of cookoos to the legislators. We need some people with credentials testifying as to why this is a bad idea!


----------

