There are plenty of medical professionals involved in our organization. But that's not the point, you're stuck with arguing about degrees and the finer points of the definition of "derived," because you don't want to just say "people don't have a right to know."
-
-
This isn't about people having a right to know. It's about legislating the doctor patient relationship, telling people one piece of misleading information, and hoping it will prevent them from getting vaccinated. (1)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @H_SalemOaks @Right_to_Life and
If you would like this information available to people with strongly held beliefs there are other ways. For one, you could create resources yourself. If this was really about the right to know you could tell people the whole story and let them decide. (2)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Oh, it's not at all about the "right to know." If it was, the language in the bill wouldn't be so deceptive and emotive.
@doritmi suggested less emotive and more accurate language. Anyone wanna bet whether RTL will push the bill's sponsors to adopt it? It won't.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @H_SalemOaks and
How is "derived from aborted fetal tissue" emotive? Again, the bill does not say how doctors or nurses have to explain it to patients, that's a legal definition. Do you not trust doctors and nurses to explain this to their own patients?
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon and
Please. Now you're being insincere. You know very well that's emotive language. And you should know by now it's also misleading. The bill requires providers to say things that are misleading, emotionally manipulative to their patients.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
The bill doesn't require them to say anything specific. It does not define that language. You are not being accurate.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @doritmi and
Do I need to quote the text again? "Before administering an immunizing agent derived from aborted fetal tissue to an individual, a health care provider shall notify the individual ... that the immunizing agent was derived from aborted fetal tissue." http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2018-SIB-1055.pdf …
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @H_SalemOaks @doritmi and
The bill doesn't specify the manner of notification. If you look at other informed consent legislation we've worked on with abortion, it's very specific what they have to say, because they have incentive to lie. All we want is to stop doctors and nurses from giving out bad info.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @H_SalemOaks and
In other words, you specifically want them to say what's in the bill, even though it's emotionally manipulative and misleading. That's not informed consent. Nor does it respect conscience, because misleading people does not.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Indeed. It's an antivaccine technique of disinformation that I dubbed "misinformed consent" eight years ago.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2010/11/05/how-should-we-respond-to-the-anti-vaccin/ …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.