Debate: why vaccinations and X-rays?
#31
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Originally posted by lairdside
sory about all the histopathological blagh - I don't know any other way to explain it without being hellishly inaccurate. All of this stuff is the VERY cut down version.
sory about all the histopathological blagh - I don't know any other way to explain it without being hellishly inaccurate. All of this stuff is the VERY cut down version.
#32
Originally posted by Ranjini
Are you a doctor or a pathologist You are becoming almost as bad as Matt Udall... Lol So you'd better watch out....
Are you a doctor or a pathologist You are becoming almost as bad as Matt Udall... Lol So you'd better watch out....
#33
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Originally posted by lairdside
<snip> immigration law isn't quite so tough to read after having to analyze medical research papers..and write them on occasion...lol
<snip> immigration law isn't quite so tough to read after having to analyze medical research papers..and write them on occasion...lol
#34
Originally posted by Ranjini
The problem with immigration law is that it is not specific ... not so much being hard to read.
The problem with immigration law is that it is not specific ... not so much being hard to read.
My overview is that anything with involves human participation in an effort to regulate itself inevitably ends up this way to some extent. People look to administrative decisions to clarify points which are ambiguous in the law but at the end of the day any law is only as good as the person who is responsible for interpreting and subsequently implementing it. If we have a highly techinical law then we need people capable of doing this and the current people responsible for doing this seem to be having enough trouble with the law as it is. In something which is applied to a wide range of scenarios inconsistencies are never going to be completely erradicated.
I don't doubt that changes do need to be made but the process for making such changes seems to be painfully slow by comparison to the world around it and often changes have unwanted side effects which cause deficiencies in other areas. If we could review the law today to make it 'perfect' by the time the changes were made it would be out-of-date. The two schools of thought tend to be that more and less legislation are required.... both having their pitfalls. In the meantime we change what we can and live with what we have, muddling our way through.
It's not immigration law - it's life !
Last edited by lairdside; Apr 7th 2003 at 9:14 am.
#35
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Originally posted by lairdside
The impression I get of Immigration Law is that there was a reasonably coherent plan - once - but it's been tinkered with successively to try to adapt it to changing circumstances and so has grown organically.... and now much of it seems to me a cobbled together mis-match which works pretty well for 90% or more of cases but badly fails those who 'fall through the cracks'. In that respect it sounds much like many other areas of the law.
My overview is that anything with involves human participation in an effort to regulate itself inevitably ends up this way to some extent. People look to administrative decisions to clarify points which are ambiguous in the law but at the end of the day any law is only as good as the person who is responsible for interpreting and subsequently implementing it. If we have a highly techinical law then we need people capable of doing this and the current people responsible for doing this seem to be having enough trouble with the law as it is. In something which is applied to a wide range of scenarios inconsistencies are never going to be completely erradicated.
I don't doubt that changes do need to be made but the process for making such changes seems to be painfully slow by comparison to the world around it and often changes have unwanted side effects which cause deficiencies in other areas. If we could review the law today to make it 'perfect' by the time the changes were made it would be out-of-date. The two schools of thought tend to be that more and less legislation are required.... both having their pitfalls. In the meantime we change what we can and live with what we have, muddling our way through.
It's not immigration law - it's life !
The impression I get of Immigration Law is that there was a reasonably coherent plan - once - but it's been tinkered with successively to try to adapt it to changing circumstances and so has grown organically.... and now much of it seems to me a cobbled together mis-match which works pretty well for 90% or more of cases but badly fails those who 'fall through the cracks'. In that respect it sounds much like many other areas of the law.
My overview is that anything with involves human participation in an effort to regulate itself inevitably ends up this way to some extent. People look to administrative decisions to clarify points which are ambiguous in the law but at the end of the day any law is only as good as the person who is responsible for interpreting and subsequently implementing it. If we have a highly techinical law then we need people capable of doing this and the current people responsible for doing this seem to be having enough trouble with the law as it is. In something which is applied to a wide range of scenarios inconsistencies are never going to be completely erradicated.
I don't doubt that changes do need to be made but the process for making such changes seems to be painfully slow by comparison to the world around it and often changes have unwanted side effects which cause deficiencies in other areas. If we could review the law today to make it 'perfect' by the time the changes were made it would be out-of-date. The two schools of thought tend to be that more and less legislation are required.... both having their pitfalls. In the meantime we change what we can and live with what we have, muddling our way through.
It's not immigration law - it's life !
#36
Originally posted by ccalgreen
Just a thought - even though the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine isn't available in the U.K., and therefore isn't required for the K-1 interview at the USEL, will I be required to get it for AoS in the U.S.?
Just a thought - even though the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine isn't available in the U.K., and therefore isn't required for the K-1 interview at the USEL, will I be required to get it for AoS in the U.S.?
for the ones interested, the only varicella shot availlable in germany (my doc complained she could not choose between differant ones) is:
name: Varilrix (R)
manufacturer: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals s.a., Rue de l'Institut, 89, 1330 Rixensart, Belgium
package: dry stuff (56 mg) some wet stuff to be mixed (0.5 ml)
dosis: 2 shouts at least 6 weeks apart with this particular brand
hope that was helpful to some
p.s.: maybe i should note, that the doc might have been only so nice with me, as i am not insured by a main government supported health insurance, and thus need pay premium rates - and i bet she will write "very long advisory talk" - damn doctors they always write that on the bill, even if they only said hello and good bye - but i dont complain, i just do what cannot be prevented - i only want the k-1 and all the other stuff over and done with :P
#37
Originally posted by Duckie
what you mean not availlable? maybe that was just the lazy doctors response.
what you mean not availlable? maybe that was just the lazy doctors response.
Even the US Embassy in London acknowledges this, which is why that particular vaccination is not required for UK residents going through the US immigration process:
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web...ccinechart.htm
~ Jenney
#38
Originally posted by Jenney & Mark
I doubt that all the doctors in the UK are simply being "lazy." The Varicella vaccine is just that -- not available in the UK. That's not the same thing as doctors rarely innoculating people for chicken pox.
Even the US Embassy in London acknowledges this, which is why that particular vaccination is not required for UK residents going through the US immigration process:
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web...ccinechart.htm
~ Jenney
I doubt that all the doctors in the UK are simply being "lazy." The Varicella vaccine is just that -- not available in the UK. That's not the same thing as doctors rarely innoculating people for chicken pox.
Even the US Embassy in London acknowledges this, which is why that particular vaccination is not required for UK residents going through the US immigration process:
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web...ccinechart.htm
~ Jenney
CLEM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Debate: why vaccinations and X-rays?
Duckie wrote:
>
> Originally posted by ccalgreen
> > Just a thought - even though the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine isn't
> > available in the U.K., and therefore isn't required for the K-1
> > interview at the USEL, will I be required to get it for AoS in the
> > U.S.?
> what you mean not availlable? maybe that was just the lazy doctors
> response. i just went last week to my doc (in germany). and said that i
Unavailable means just that. The varicella vaccination is not available
in the UK and the consulate is well aware of this (of course). We did
not even try to get the vaccination once we learned this. If I recall my
wife's paperwork a line was drawn through that part of the vaccination
section on of one of the papers.
> would like to have a Td shot and the varicella shots. she said that
> varicella is not beeing done here. oh why not, what is it good for? oh,
If the jab is not generally available in Germany perhaps you did not
need to have it (this is just a guess)
>
> Originally posted by ccalgreen
> > Just a thought - even though the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine isn't
> > available in the U.K., and therefore isn't required for the K-1
> > interview at the USEL, will I be required to get it for AoS in the
> > U.S.?
> what you mean not availlable? maybe that was just the lazy doctors
> response. i just went last week to my doc (in germany). and said that i
Unavailable means just that. The varicella vaccination is not available
in the UK and the consulate is well aware of this (of course). We did
not even try to get the vaccination once we learned this. If I recall my
wife's paperwork a line was drawn through that part of the vaccination
section on of one of the papers.
> would like to have a Td shot and the varicella shots. she said that
> varicella is not beeing done here. oh why not, what is it good for? oh,
If the jab is not generally available in Germany perhaps you did not
need to have it (this is just a guess)