NDs in favor of new AANP position on vaccines

Re: AANP Immunization Position - in favor!
Expand Messages
Shiva Barton, ND
Message 1 of 5 , Aug 4 3:55 AM
View Source
Hello,

I don't usually comment on political issues but I want to support the
AANP on its vaccination position paper, AND, for having the will and
strength to take on this difficult issue. The AANP is responsible for
the political advancement of the profession. There is no need to have
position papers on topics that are not controversial to political
decision makers. The language of these papers is meant to clarify the
profession's position while attempting to clear political obstacles.
Obviously, there would be no need to have a vaccination position paper
if it wasn't a big issue that stands in the way of our political
progress. While no policy will satisfy either end of the pro or anti
vaccination thinkers, this policy piece seems to promote ND discretion,
which is key. I use this same discretion in the recommended use of other
medications that may have side effects as well, so I see this as a
consistent policy.

Politically, this is a huge issue. Our proposed licensing bill has a
clause requiring us to assess a child's vaccination status and referring
if they are not totally vaccinated. This clause was required of us by
the Department of Public Health because of our profession's perceived
anti-vaccination stance. This is a huge issue for licensure in our
states and other emerging states. I would hope that those of you with
the advantage of being in a licensed state would think more globally
when considering the implications of these policy issues.

So Mona, when you are representing the profession on your panel at the
conference, please also express my opinion of gratitude for the AANP for
having the guts to take on this issue and that I support this paper. If
any other NDs also support it, please weigh in briefly on Nat Chat so
Mona has an idea of the breadth of opinion about this issue.

Shiva Barton, ND
Winchester, MA



Kim Furtado
Message 2 of 5 , Today at 7:10 AM
View Source
I want to also share my support of Drs. Barton and Archambault's recent posts.

I believe that the position paper is more of a political issue than anything else.  As written, it is non-inflammatory to the dominant culture, and yet still provides for discretion by the naturopathic doctor.

(I am not going to comment about the immunization issues  (ie risks/benefits)  here other than to say I support informed consent, and have personally not vaccinated my children via the provision in DE that allows only for religious exemption. But I support each parent's right to make that decision, informed as best that they can be on each vaccine.  I participated in the survey, and I believe the position paper is accurate in a politically intelligent way)

Keep in mind - our position paper is just that, our position.   (and if it is not stating all of the DIVERSE views of all docs, and is not attempting to be the stage to vet/air all details regarding each vaccine, then even with those "downfalls" then it still does not mean it is not a useful tool for us to create.)

A position paper does not dictate or allow or prevent or control us or our clinical practice.

What dictates for our scope of practice and our ability to serve in the world as doctors are licensing laws.  plain and simple.

If the end goal is to not lose the right for parents to have an exemption for vaccines, then we should not lose sight of the reality that ND's only have the right to practice medicine in about 18 states.

Our ability really to think our position papers are pulpits to be used to influence the dominant medical community is almost comical to me, and I am sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful to us, our voice.

But we need to exist in the world stage to have a voice.  and in truth, as far as political clout, we have more a squeak of the mouse on stage right.

Our VOICE is truly more vibrant through the work we do to advocate for patients in our clinical practices, the amazing medicine we practice, the space we create to honor a patient's process, the empowerment and education we provide, our clinical results with peoples' health.   Our political VOICE, is just in formative development.

But our licensed docs may be forgetting what it is like here in the front lines... unlicensed states.

I graduated in 2000, and I think at that time there were maybe 13 states that licensed our profession.  I work as the SOLE naturopath in my small little state, and while I wholeheartedly support licensure to happen here and in all 50 states, I realize this is not going to be achieved any time soon.

And it most certainly won't become a reality if we look at our position papers as "clinical" guidance tools, or practice management guides, or pulpits to influence our dominant culture on the issue of immunizations, or that we will influence or help retain a patients' right to informed consent when we mostly don't even have the right to practice medicine in even a majority of states.

Position Papers are POLITICAL statements.  And I believe this one is carefully worded to allow for our true diverse perspective as a profession to be retained, but not blatantly used to ostracize/exclude us as doctors.  It is not myopic.

Please keep the boundary clear as best we can, and recognize that our position paper is not an appropriate tool to vet every controversial argument pro or con vaccines and present a unified voice to the world.

Our immunization position paper is a succinct and clear way for us us to define the issue in non-inflammatory language and place ourselves in a position to advance our licensing efforts, not cripple them.




Best Regards,

Kim Furtado, N.D.



Melanie Whittaker
Message 3 of 5 , Today at 7:39 AM
View Source
Dear Kim,

I hear you and your concerns load and clear. AND I greatly appreciate the non-licensed state fight for licensure.

 I believe it is naïve to think that position papers by our national association do not pave the way for an eventual standard of care for the profession. I say this from a position of being a past President of the WANP, many years on the WANP board, and all these years of lobbying and fighting our way through state licensure and our scope rights to practice, and 22 years of private practice. Also I am a registered nurse and I see 38 years of conventional medicine and how they conduct themselves in our culture. I mean to say that standards of care definitely come from political positions. To say we are not part of/very effected by that culture is not looking at the facts of how things work. End of that story for me.

Melanie Whittaker, RN, ND
Stanwood, WA



James Prego, ND
Message 4 of 5 , Today at 8:42 AM
View Source
This is the best understanding of the purpose of a position paper I have ever read.  Great!
Jim Prego ND
Bay Shore NY



Michael W Whitney NMD DC FABNO
Message 5 of 5 , Today at 9:30 AM
View Source
HI Jim,

Yes, I agree.  These are the undertones in this conversation.  Do we proceed with licensure with improved chances in unlicensed states by at least acknowledging the vaccine schedule as not opposed or in favor or do we stand on principle and say no to vaccination as mandatory or by some degree less than that.

I believe Dr Cronin and the board are likely attempting to prioritize our future as a profession by getting us licensed in all states.  That has to be the top priority for this profession if we are to be more than a footnote in medical history and keep the doors of our medical schools open.

Maybe we can do both.. somehow?    I am no poker player but I am sure  the good ones don't show you their hand unless it benefits them...

Michael W Whitney NMD DC FABNO