Comic by Mariana Hernandez

Comic by Mariana Hernandez

I come from a family in which the interest in pursuing a career in medicine seems to be “genetic.” As a result of being raised in such an environment alongside pursuing my personal interest in medicine, I feel fortunate to have a relatively deep understanding of the practice of medicine. This being said, I am continually frustrated by much of the controversy surrounding health care practices in the United States. Currently, this is first and foremost the “debate” over vaccines.

The Wheel published an editorial titled “Measles Outbreak Ignites Vaccine Controversy” on Thursday, Feb. 5, by Maya Lakshman detailing her grievances over the apparent negligence and condescension directed by the system towards patients. To paraphrase the crux of her argument, vaccinations are essentially forced upon children and their parents by doctors who neglect to provide sufficient “accurate and unbiased” information. Let me be fully clear in my response. This is absurd.

I’m going to ignore the majority of the arguments against vaccinations. There are simply too many data to cite. A Google Scholar search of “vaccines” nets over 1.5 million results in six hundredths of a second. Politicians, celebrities, grassroots Tumblr heroes and sensationalistic media practices touting the mantel of a vocal minority maintain the illusion of a “debate” over vaccines.

However, there still is a general misunderstanding in the United States that doctors profit from giving vaccinations. This is plainly false and on top of that makes no sense at all. From a purely robotic and cynical job security standpoint, doctors profit from patient visits. If patients are treated or cured in a single visit, as opposed to repeat visits, wouldn’t it make more sense, cynically and facetiously speaking, for doctors not to try to cure patients? Repeat visits equate to repeat paychecks. So what is “in it” financially for doctors to vaccinate? In a certain sense, it would be more in doctors’ interests to recommend that patients not vaccinate. In a very twisted sense, this puts them at odds with pharmaceutical companies.

Perhaps, then, pharmaceutical companies are only in it for the money which, ultimately, as for-profit organizations, they are. The advantage for them, then, would be to make the most efficient product (putting them “at odds” with doctors), or risk a competitor displacing them with a better product. Ineffective vaccines just don’t stand up to logical evaluation. The bulk of the benefit is for the public and the consumer.

To address the argument that insufficient information is provided, what information should be provided? A crash course on memory B cells and helper T cells? A one-hundred-page review article on the history, safety, efficacy and physiological function of vaccines, read aloud? Despite doctors’ years of human capital investment, if you’re really concerned about the accurate and unbiased authority of your doctor, it should still be your duty as a parent to take a vested interest in the health of your child. Go find research to make educated decisions. To be blunt, go read a book.

What isn’t understood about the United States’ health care system is that it is not a forced service. All United States patients have the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. If you do not like your doctor, you can and should “fire” them and find one you trust. Incidentally, that this is anecdotally not generally understood is also, in my opinion, why there is such great mistrust of the medical system. If your orthopaedist would like to treat your gastric ulcer, or your general practitioner has some plans for the treatment of your hydrocephalus or pheochromocytoma without consulting a neurologist or endocrinologist, go find other doctors or see the proper specialists. Don’t use them as a straw man to blame all medical professionals. This is not to say that you just need to find one who only tells you what you want to hear. Nonetheless, in the same way you wouldn’t want your architect to also manage the structural engineering of your skyscraper, good medicine works when specialists work together. “Firing” your “bad” doctor will only drive the overall quality of health care in the United States toward better health care.

I’ll admit this editorial is based on some presumptions and generalizations. To be clear, it’s irresponsible for a doctor to not be patient and actively listen to his or her patients’ needs. Your doctor yelling at you out of frustration of your question about vaccines and autism is unprofessional. But then that particular doctor likely isn’t your only option for care or for that matter your only source for vaccination information. A single anecdote isn’t proof and doesn’t represent the entirety of the system.

Finding fault with medical practice in the United States for lacking accurate and unbiased information stems from a stubborn lack of understanding of the health care system and the unwillingness to actively find and evaluate information. Moreover, refusing to vaccinate your children because you do not believe your doctor provides all the necessary information is negligent and lazy.

It is also being unrealistically paranoid of the government, pharmaceutical corporations and doctors in general. Miring yourself in indecision over whether or not to vaccinate because you feel you don’t understand is a self-imposed stagnation.

You do not get to refuse to listen to factual arguments while also refusing to spend the time to research them yourself, or claim that information isn’t provided. We live in an information age in which the world is keystrokes away. If you want to hear more than a brief summary of the information, go find it.

Bjorn Anderson is a College senior from Minneapolis, Minnesota.

+ posts