Stakeholder #3

Sencer. "Laboratory personnel doctors working stock image". 
04/2015 via Public Domain Images. Public Domain Generic License. 

In this last blog entry about primary stakeholders, I will be discussing the doctors and medical professionals from the supportive side of the controversy.  These claims will be based on actual medical evidence and studies done on vaccinations.

1.  Describing the Medical Professionals

             I would say that many people would hold these medical professionals in high grounds, however, the people that are opposed to the SB277 bill think that the doctors are just lying to keep getting money and to not be considered "wrong" in their fields of expertise.  But to the people that very highly support the new law, the medical professionals are the basis for their decision to vaccinate.  The people of California pro- SB277 have full confidence in the doctors and medical professionals that they know what they are doing, and would not give a harmful substance to any of their patients if they knew that it would lead to autism or even death.  The doctors and medical professionals are all separate and do not have a single website to put their thoughts (unless they are opposed to the bill, then there are a plethora of websites).  This makes the information harder to find, however, they are always being interviewed and comment on news stories that would make the vaccinations seem like a bad idea or harmful to any patient or child. 

     2. Three Claims from the Medical Professionals 

• "There is no evidence that any vaccination caused or contributed to her death." (Biedryzcki 1)
• "Out of all of the variables considered in this study, the percent of parents' network members recommending nonconformity was more predictive of parents' vaccination decisions than any other variable including parents' own perceptions of vaccination."  (Brunson 1)
• "This study is one more piece of evidence that shows that the schedule created by CDC and recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics is a very safe schedule to protect children from specific diseases at the specific time when they're most vulnerable,"(Altmann 1)

     3.  Claims Explained

• This claim, said by Dr. Lynda Biedryzcki, MD, from Wisconsin, is a reliable source since she is a professional and well-trained medical examiner.  She examined the body of the 12 year old girl who passed away 6 hours after getting her HPV shot at a doctor's appointment.  However, Biedryzcki confirmed that the death was not caused by the vaccination.  She says that the cause of death has not yet been determined.  Although this statement does not contain much emotion or feelings toward it, there are facts that prove that some of the deaths that the parents blame on the vaccinations, are in fact, not from the vaccination at all.  This is an objective statement for the side of the controversy that supports the vaccination bill because it proves with scientific evidence that the vaccinations are not always the cause of death, and not always the root of autistic children either.  
• This claim said by Dr. Emily Brunson, PhD, is a credible source of information because she has a strong medical background and is the one who conducted the experiment to determine what it really is that causes parents to opt out of vaccinating their children in either a delayed schedule or just never at all.  Dr. Brunson has an anthropology background and is an anthropology professor at Texas State University.  She focuses on public health, so she understands the issues that are occurring in that field.  She has a strong base to support her claim that parents will choose their children's vaccination path based on what other parents they know are choosing to do.  She conducted a large experiment with other doctors and medical professionals so it is all correctly done without any bias- strictly scientific evidence.  This is an objective source for information considering she is not a pediatrician that is saying that vaccines are good or bad, she is just saying that based on the experiment she conducted, parents will just follow what other people are doing.  There is complete fact and no emotion in this statement, which also bring objectivity to the claim.  
• This claim, said by Dr. Tanya Altmann, a pediatrician in Calabasas, CA and assistant clinical professor at UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital, is completely credible.  This is not only because of the fact that she is a mother of 3, but also because she is a well- educated and well-trained doctor.  She is the spokeswoman of the American Academy of Pediatrics and is a child health expert on multiple news channels.  It is because of her extensive amount of knowledge that she is a credible and objective source of information.  She includes not only facts from the American Academy of Pediatrics, but she also includes emotion into the claim by bringing the children into the picture.  The combination of these two elements in her claim, really make Dr. Altmann seem to be a very credible source of information for this vaccination controversy.  

      4. Differences in Stakeholders' Claims

            These claims are much like those of the politicians, in the way that they are scientifically factual and have evidence to support their statements.  However, the medical professionals have a higher amount of credibility because they are the ones that are performing the experiments, and they are the ones that are really knowledgeable about the topic, while the parents and the politicians do the research, but may not fully understand the science behind it.  The medical professional stakeholder is the most different from the parents opposed to the new law because of the knowledge and science background aspect.  As I said before, these medical professionals' claims are most similar to those of the politicians, however, they are still a bit different since the medical professionals are actually professionals in the science fields, where the politicians have someone find that information for them so that they can make a bill out of that information.