Connect with us

Science

A pediatrician's dilemma: Should a practice kick out unvaccinated kids?

Published

on

A pediatrician's dilemma: Should a practice kick out unvaccinated kids?

Orange County pediatrician Dr. Eric Ball still feels guilty about the Disneyland measles outbreak of 2014.

At the time, his office allowed children whose parents refused to vaccinate them to still remain as patients. Many took advantage of the policy, leaving the children in his practice well below the 95% threshold that experts say is needed to achieve herd immunity. In the end, a single measles case at the theme park spread to 145 people across the country; several were part of his practice.

“I was traumatized,” said Ball. “I felt that like we didn’t do enough as a practice, and I didn’t do enough as a pediatrician, to convince families to get vaccinated.” Not only were the children of his anti-vaccine parents left vulnerable to the measles, but they had also exposed other children in his waiting room who couldn’t receive the vaccine because they were too young or immunocompromised.

Noah, 9 months old, sees Dr. Eric Ball at Southern Orange County Pediatric Associates in Ladera Ranch in 2024.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

As a doctor, Ball felt torn: He had a moral obligation to care for all his patients, regardless of their parent’s vaccine choices. But he also had a duty to protect his other patients, as well as the rest of the community, from a deadly virus that was almost entirely preventable.

With another measles outbreak continuing to spread in Texas and New Mexico — bringing the first two U.S. measles deaths in a decade — and eight cases already in California this year, physicians are again facing a moral quandary: Should they refuse to see families who don’t want to vaccinate their children, or keep them in their practices in the hopes of changing their minds?

A logo that states "Los Angeles Times early childhood initiative" in colorful lettering.

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

Advertisement

After the Disneyland outbreak, the doctors at Ball’s practice decided to crack down. In 2015, they instituted a new policy: Southern Orange County Pediatric Associates would no longer accept patients who did not plan to immunize their children. Existing patients who didn’t want to vaccinate would need to find a new doctor.

A growing trend of dismissing unvaccinated patients

“Dismissal” policies were once discouraged by the medical establishment, both because pediatricians have a duty to care for all their young patients, and because some anti-vaccine parents can be convinced over time to change their minds.

But in 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics came up with new guidance: Vaccines against preventable diseases like the measles were so important that if, after repeated attempts, a pediatrician couldn’t convince a parent to get their child immunized, a practice could righteously kick them out.

“I think that made a big difference to a lot of us. It gave us cover,” said Ball.

Advertisement

Since then, dismissal policies have grown much more popular.

In 2013, some 21% of pediatricians reported that they often or always dismissed families who refused vaccination, according to a survey published in the journal Pediatrics. By 2019, the share had grown to 37%; the 2019 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., also found that just over half of pediatricians said their office had a dismissal policy in place.

For families that seek to spread out vaccines with an alternative schedule, dismissals are much less common: just 8% of individual pediatricians reported often or always dismissing these families, while 28% reported that their office has such a dismissal policy, according to the academy.

Dismissal policies are much more common among private practices. Academic medical institutions, including UCLA, large health systems like Kaiser Permanente, rural clinics and safety net systems for low-income patients generally accept all patients, regardless of whether the parents intend to vaccinate their children. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is an exception and discourages pediatricians in their clinics from treating unvaccinated patients.

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The question of whether to dismiss has become increasingly pressing amid growing anti-vaccine sentiment and a decline in coverage. The proportion of kindergartners nationwide who completed their measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine series dropped from about 95% — the federal coverage target — before the pandemic to less than 93% last school year.

In California, 96.2% of kindergartners were fully vaccinated against the measles in the 2023-24 school year, a slight decline from the year before.

“No matter what your policy, you feel ethically justified,” said Dr. Sean O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, who co-wrote the American Academy of Pediatrics’ latest guidance on vaccines. In January, the New England Journal of Medicine presented arguments on both sides of the debate, with O’Leary writing a statement in favor of accepting unvaccinated patients. “I personally understand both sides.”

Advertisement

Why doctors dismiss vaccine-hesitant families

These days, many pediatric practices are upfront about their policies, and some announce it on their website, letting prospective patients know to stay away if they don’t want to vaccinate.

At Larchmont Pediatrics, for example, Dr. Neville Anderson requires all patients to be vaccinated. If parents refuse to vaccinate their infants after a final conversation at the 3-month visit, the practice sends them an official dismissal letter.

A doctor in front of  an upper-story office window.

Dr. Neville Anderson is photographed in between vaccinating young patients at Larchmont Pediatrics in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“If a parent is truly anti-vax and does not want to vaccinate their child, our values and our goals and our beliefs are so antithetical to each other that we’re not a good team,” said Anderson. “I’m not the right doctor for them, and they’re not the right patient for me.” Larchmont dismisses only one to four patients each year, she said, since most anti-vaccine families know their reputation and tend to go elsewhere.

But for some patients, the dismissal policy is a real draw. “We get a lot of people who will come to us because we have this policy and we enforce it,” said Anderson. “They’re afraid of bringing their 7-month-old into a waiting room where there’s an unvaccinated child.”

Doctors should make every effort to convince a family to vaccinate before dismissing them, said Dr. Jesse Hackell, a retired pediatrician in New York who also co-wrote the pediatric academy’s report on improving vaccine communication. The problem, he said, is that these conversations are time-consuming and unpaid for busy pediatricians who often only have 20 minutes with a patient. “It’s frustrating, and it’s one of the issues that leads to moral injury and burnout.”

Hackell, 74, remembers a time before vaccination, when many of his young patients ended up hospitalized with measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases. “I don’t want to ever go back to those days of worrying about the 2 a.m. phone call about a kid with 105-degree fever. That’s that’s not good for me as a physician. It’s not good for the kid or the family.” His practice had a dismissal policy long before the pediatrics academy said it was acceptable.

One ethical argument in favor of dismissing is based on parents having a moral obligation to vaccinate their children to reduce the risk of infecting others, said Dr. Doug Opel, a bioethicist and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Advertisement

Another point is that “vaccination is viewed as a social contract,” he said. “So it’s not fair to share in the collective benefits of vaccination without accepting the small burdens of vaccination by getting your child vaccinated themselves.”

1 Dr. Neville Anderson and nurse Breanna Kirby with a young patient Iris Behnam, and mother Haley Behnam.

2 Dr. Neville Anderson, Perry Roj, 4, and Breanna Kirby gives her DTap Polio vaccination while her mom, Devin Homsey holds her.

3 Dr. Neville Anderson, Arlo Vasquez, 7 months-old, held by his mom Christa Iacono, not pictured, at Larchmont Pediatrics.

1. Dr. Neville Anderson, right, tries to cheer up Iris Behnam, 4, while nurse Breanna Kirby, left, gives her DTap Polio and MMR Chickenpox (Varicilla) vaccinations while her mom, Haley Behnam, holds her. 2. Dr. Neville Anderson, right, tries to distract Perry Roj, 4, while nurse Breanna Kirby, left, gives her DTap Polio vaccination while her mom, Devin Homsey holds her. 3. Dr. Neville Anderson, left, with Arlo Vasquez, 7 months-old, held by his mom Christa Iacono, not pictured, while getting a flu, Covid, Hepatitis B vaccinations at Larchmont Pediatrics. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The moral case for accepting vaccine-hesitant families

Advertisement

Opel said that, as a bioethicist, he comes down on the side of keeping families in a practice.

“In what other area of medicine even do we expect patients or parents to hold the same values and beliefs that we have?” he asked. “Instead, we approach differences with humility and respectfully explore those values as a way to find common ground and shared understanding.” Opel said about 30% of parents do end up changing their mind. “Vaccine hesitancy is a modifiable behavior.”

O’Leary said there is also little evidence that accepting unvaccinated children leads to the transmission of vaccine-preventable illnesses in an office setting. And it isn’t clear whether the threat of dismissal actually convinces parents to get vaccinated, or whether patients who get kicked out of a practice end up finding other sources of care.

ln San Diego County, Children’s Primary Care Medical Group — a large practice with 28 offices in the region — has a policy of accepting all patients, regardless of vaccination status.

“The basic philosophy is it’s not the kids who refuse, it’s the parents. And we don’t punish kids for the decisions of the parents,” said Dr. Adam Breslow, the group’s president and CEO.

Advertisement

About 90% of the group’s patients are vaccinated on schedule, Breslow said. Of the 2-3% who refuse all vaccinations, most come from wealthier areas where parents can afford to homeschool or send their children to private school. He said it’s rare that he’s able to convince them to vaccinate in a single office visit, but over the course of several years in his practice, some parents do eventually change their minds.

“By keeping them in the practice, there’s a chance they’re going to get vaccinated,” said O’Leary. “But if you kick them out, who knows what’s going to happen?”

Where do parents who don’t vaccinate kids go?

Widespread dismissal policies can make it difficult for vaccine-hesitant families to find regular sources of care. In local Facebook groups, parents often exchange tips about practices that are more tolerant of spreading out or refusing vaccines.

Some advise using concierge practices, which charge thousands of dollars in annual fees on top of insurance payments but may allow more flexibility with vaccination schedules. Some of these practices offer unproven alternatives to vaccination with little or no evidence to back them up.

Advertisement

Whitney Jacks, a mother in Escondido, recently posted in a moms group on Facebook for help finding a new pediatrician who would accept her preference to limit vaccines. With her older child, who is 7, she used to pay for a concierge doctor in Maryland whom she saw over Zoom. But her son doesn’t have a regular pediatrician and therefore skips his annual well visits, though he does see a specialist several times a year.

Now pregnant with her second child, she was hoping to find someone local who would accept her insurance and support her decision to wait until the baby turns 2 before starting vaccinating.

Other moms in the Facebook group were hesitant to share the names publicly for fear that the doctors could get into trouble, she said, preferring to direct message her instead. One mom sent her a list of names, which she used to set up meet-and-greet appointments with the four closest to her home.

But as she began to meet with them, one after another gave her the same response: “We won’t kick you out, but we don’t like this,” said Jacks, who is an acupuncturist. “So they’re already putting it at you that they disapprove of your point of view.” None made her feel welcome.

She picked the most convenient office. But Jacks worries that every visit will focus on vaccination instead of other issues like feeding and sleeping that are important in the first years.

Advertisement

“It doesn’t give me any confidence or faith in the provider.”

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Science

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

Published

on

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

new video loaded: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

transcript

transcript

NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

“I am excited to welcome you as the next crew in the Artemis journey to successfully return to the moon — this time to stay.” “I’m honored by the role that I’ve been given. I’m also very humbled by the task in front of us. But first and foremost, I’m grateful.” “So with that, the Artemis II crew, comrade, hands you the baton. You got the controls.” “As you know, we had a significant anomaly at our Launch Complex 36A on May 28. We’ve redoubled our efforts and are moving forward.”

Advertisement
NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 9, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Published

on

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Scientists feared the Santa Monica Mountains’ last remaining steelhead trout were dead, smothered by debris flows unleashed by the Palisades fire.

But the endangered fish surprised them: A team of biologists recently spotted 30 of the rare trout — and 21 babies — in Topanga Creek.

“There was a lot of happy dancing in the creek,” said Rosi Dagit, principal conservation biologist for the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, which works with public and private landowners to conserve natural resources.

That’s because the steelhead here are endangered, at both the state and federal levels. Once, they swam in most streams of the Santa Monicas, but their numbers plummeted amid overfishing and coastal development. Increasingly frequent wildfire has further stressed their habitat. Topanga Creek, a biodiversity hot spot, is home to their last known population in the mountains that stretch from the Hollywood Hills to Point Mugu in Ventura County.

The trout that were spotted, including this one, are part of a distinct Southern California population that’s listed as endangered at the state and federal levels.

Advertisement

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife spearheaded a complex mission to rescue trout threatened by the Palisades fire that sparked in January 2025.

Time was of the essence. The fire hadn’t yet been fully contained. But rain was on the way, which would sweep massive amounts of sediment from the denuded hillsides into the water. Fish are often killed this way.

Crews stunned the fish with electricity, scooped them up in buckets, trucked them to a hatchery and ultimately moved them to Arroyo Hondo Creek in Santa Barbara County.

Advertisement

Within days, Topanga Creek was choked with mud. Some assumed the fish left behind were goners.

But in March, the conservation district’s team found four. The following month, when water conditions were clearer, they saw more.

“These fish continue to amaze me,” said Kyle Evans, environmental program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, who had seen the damage to the creek. “I had seen populations get wiped out in similar situations. So when I heard, I was thrilled.”

Evans surmises the fish that survived were in an area of the creek where less charred material and sediment were swept in.

“These fish likely hunkered down, were hiding under some rocks or places to try to get away from the main concentration of flow,” he said. “And luckily they weren’t buried.”

Advertisement

The ones that were spotted were fairly small, around 6 to 14 inches. Rainbow trout and steelhead trout are the same species, but with different lifestyles. If the fish remain in freshwater, they’ll be considered rainbows. However, they can migrate to the ocean and become steelhead, where they typically grow larger before returning to their natal waters to spawn.

Topanga Creek hasn’t fully recovered from the damage it sustained, but scientists say it’s looking better. Surveys last year were “so depressing,” Dagit said, with very few animals, and stretches that were essentially transformed into flat roads from all the sediment buildup. Some of the riparian canopy burned right down to the creek.

Then came 32 inches of rain over the last nine months, scouring out and moving sediment, creating deeper pools. Dagit said they recently found newt egg masses for the first time in years, as well as a few adult newts and many frogs. Plants that provide cover are starting to recover.

She provided photos comparing certain pools last year and this year, some dramatically transformed. In September 2025, the Shrine Pool could have been an overgrown hiking trail. This April, it was filled with shallow water.

Shrine Pool, Sept. 2025, left, and the same location, April 2026, right.

The Shrine Pool in September 2025, left, and the same location in April 2026, right, with RCDSMM’s Isaac Yelchin donning a wetsuit.

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

Advertisement

Topanga Creek is home to another endangered fish, the small but hardy northern tidewater goby, often described as cute. Not long before the trout operation, Dagit led a rescue of hundreds of these fish too. Many were repatriated to the lagoon at the mouth of the creek in a moving ceremony last June.

There’s still the matter of what to do with the trout that were moved to Santa Barbara County last year. Evans would like to bring them home to the Santa Monicas at some point, but isn’t sure if it will happen. On one hand, they could bolster the small, genetically isolated surviving population. On the other, they might inadvertently bring in a disease or bacteria. There is some time to decide. Evans estimates the creek still needs to recover for two to three more years.

For now, the fish are functioning fine in their adopted creek. Experts worried the trauma wrought by the move would disrupt their spawning process, but they had babies that spring. This year, they spawned again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Pacifica pier cracks, another coastal casualty as seas continue to rise

Published

on

Pacifica pier cracks, another coastal casualty as seas continue to rise

The Pacifica Municipal Pier was shut down and taped off Thursday after city workers noticed cracks running through the landmark structure and concrete chunks falling into the ocean.

It’s just one of many coastal California structures that have recently crumbled under pressure from a rising and relentless ocean.

Officials from the small, beach city south of San Francisco said the pier was closed due to “cracking, separation, and displacement of the concrete walkway and structural elements.”

It will stay closed while structural engineers asses its safety.

Advertisement

Photos taken by city employees show a wide crack that runs from top to bottom and across the structure as well. Other photos show a large horizontal crack under the foundation of a small restaurant on the pier, the Chit Chat Cafe.

The cafe was also shut down.

This is not the first time the 53-year-old pier has shown signs of stress. In 2021, part of it was shut down after handrails along the edge collapsed. And in 2023, after a series of storms pummeled the Central California coast, damaging parts of the pier, the structure was partially closed for more than year.

Those same storms caused extensive damage in Aptos and Capitola, 70 miles south, where piers and waterfront infrastructure were swept away or damaged.

In 2024, a 150- to 180- foot section of the Santa Cruz wharf was ripped off by powerful waves.

Advertisement

At least 10 of the state’s dozens of coastal public piers were closed for part or all of 2024 due to structural damage sustained in winter storms since 2022. At least five others have longer-term upgrades planned to address structural issues.

“These things are costly to maintain,” said Zach Plopper, senior environmental director at Surfrider. “They are a part of our California coastal culture in many ways, but we’re going to need to reckon with, one, the state that they’re in, and two, the continuous and worsening threats they’re going to experience,”

He said most of the piers were constructed in the early 1900s, and they weren’t built to withstand decades of rough seas, storms and rising sea level.

“With this incoming El Niño, which is forecasted to be significant, and this marine heat wave we’re in the midst of, we’re kind of in uncharted waters as far as what this winter could bring in terms of storms and swells to the California coast, and we’re likely going to see a lot more damage,” he said. “Not just piers, but roads and other coastal infrastructure up and down the state.”

There was no storm in Pacifica earlier this week, so no single event could be blamed for the destruction.

Advertisement

However, a 2025 report from an outside engineering firm, GHD, found that several sections of the pier were in “poor” or “serious” condition, and they recommended closure before anticipated storms or events that could “subject the piles to high winds, swells and large waves.”

The firm found several areas of the pier where concrete was missing and rebar was exposed and corroding.

“The pier has continued to experience high winds and large waves in a harsh marine environment,” the engineers wrote in the report, noting that continuous exposure to seawater or marine spray was “detrimental” to the structure.

A 2023 city report estimated it would cost $19 million to repair.

That same year, a state law was enacted to require local governments along the California coast to plan for sea level rise in the coming decades.

Advertisement

Sea level has risen some 8 inches, on average, along the coast in the past 150 years, Plopper said, and researchers anticipate another foot in the next 25 years.

“We’re going to see profound shifts on our coastline, none that we have ever experienced before, and building static structures on the coast just doesn’t work all that well,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some really hard decisions.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending