The case for suing parents who don’t vaccinate their kids—or criminally charging them

[BobsLawnService]

My kid has received all his vaccinations and in every case the nurse has mentioned potential side effects, etc.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

likewise is the reality of losing a loved one in a "completely safe" environment. society fails people every day.

No environment is 'completely safe'. And sure it does, doesn't mean we can't figure out ways of improving.

herd immunity at the expense of individual rights is not acceptable. freedom for many by sacrificing the freedom of a few is not acceptable. will parents be liable for every disease their kid spreads? vaccination deaths and side effects can drop dramatically if vaccinations were administered AFTER making sure that they would not provide side effects. it is not that costly to start, but it's more convenient to jab someone and say "let's see how it goes."

vaccinations have completely annihilated diseases - but they have also caused individual misery at the sake of the community when it could have been prevented had people been more careful, taken the proper precautions and been given alternative options.

We impede individual rights for the sake of collective social betterment all the time. How's this different?

Naturally I agree with you that proper information about the risks and reasoning should be provided.

i am once again PRO-vaccination - but the entire episode was a terrible example. there are better ways of doing both - maintaining freedom AND giving vaccinations in such a way as to lower the chances of bad experiences

So then, what to do with willfully ignorant parents who still refuse to have their children vaccinated after being educated properly on the reality of vaccinations? Leave them to it and endanger other children because of their stupidity, or refuse them entrance to public spaces?

 

[D3nz]

My kid has received all his vaccinations and in every case the nurse has mentioned potential side effects, etc.

This was 14 years ago and I remember her saying he might get a temperature and to make sure I had some panado syrup, which is the same as what she said for each of his previous vaccinations.

 

[STS]

No environment is 'completely safe'. And sure it does, doesn't mean we can't figure out ways of improving.

how many people go into a doctor expecting their child to die?

We impede individual rights for the sake of collective social betterment all the time. How's this different?

Where?

Naturally I agree with you that proper information about the risks and reasoning should be provided.

So then, what to do with willfully ignorant parents who still refuse to have their children vaccinated after being educated properly on the reality of vaccinations? Leave them to it and endanger other children because of their stupidity, or refuse them entrance to public spaces?

that is what schools do already. you get the occasional hippie, but as you said, herd immunity just requires the majority of the population to be effective. willfully ignorant parents are far and few. but still, better a hippie who wants to look out for their child rather than a child that dies because someone trusts a vaccine is 100% safe

 

[KalMaverick]

But then the parents have taken all reasonable precautions. If I leave my gun lying around, my child takes it to school and shoots a few children am I at fault? What if I had locked it away?

You do know it is illegal to have your gun lying around?

That is the whole point, it is NOT criminal to not get vaccinated as it is NOT compulsory. The moment it is then it's a different story.

By banning drinking and driving - which is already the case. Difference is, in this case you'd have legal recourse for compensation etc.
Both actions (not vaccinating, and drink driving) have possible deadly consequences for others, not just yourself/your child. Why should the legal consequences be different?

Because not getting vaccinated is not the same as drinking, no person can prove for a fact vaccinantions are 100% safe it would be ridiculous to prove in court someone should be held accountable for not having their children vaccinated when the possibility is still there that it is dangerous.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

how many people go into a doctor expecting their child to die?

How many people send their children somewhere thinking their kids are going to contract potentially fatal diseases because other people are too stupid to vaccinate?

Where?

Public smoking laws, public drinking laws, hate speech laws, driving while under the influence being illegal etc.

that is what schools do already. you get the occasional hippie, but as you said, herd immunity just requires the majority of the population to be effective. willfully ignorant parents are far and few. but still, better a hippie who wants to look out for their child rather than a child that dies because someone trusts a vaccine is 100% safe

It's not just hippies that do this. Know-it-all soccer moms that watch Oprah for all their life advice is a new trend. Jenny McCarthy's nonsense actually influenced lots of people in the USA, for example. As I said there was a resurgence of whooping cough because more and more people believe her BS, instead of following their doctor's advice.

And the amount of people that die as a result of insufficient vaccination far outweighs those that die of vaccine complications.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You do know it is illegal to have your gun lying around?

That is the whole point, it is NOT criminal to not get vaccinated as it is NOT compulsory. The moment it is then it's a different story.

Isn't that part of the point of all of this? The discussion is about whether it should be. Pro and against arguments are being made.

 

[KalMaverick]

Isn't that part of the point of all of this? The discussion is about whether it should be. Pro and against arguments are being made.

Based on what?

How the law stands now? How the law shoulds stand in the future?

As I already said in my very first post, ATM = No, In the future if vaccines become compulsory = Yes.

However as you politely pointed out to googoodoll, did you even read the OP? The guy isn't talking about in the future he's talking about criminal negligence now, he also doesn't care about compulsory/voluntary.

That itself is a load of crock.

And the amount of people that die as a result of insufficient vaccination far outweighs those that die of vaccine complications.

That very line is the reason criminal negligence will never work, all a parent will need to prove is that one person has died of a vaccine complication to blow criminal negligence out the water.

 

[STS]

How many people send their children somewhere thinking their kids are going to contract potentially fatal diseases because other people are too stupid to vaccinate?

touche

Public smoking laws, public drinking laws, hate speech laws, driving while under the influence being illegal etc.

those laws do not remove your freedom however, they limit them from infringing on others. you can still smoke if you choose but not around those that do not want the smoke, if you are caught drunk driving you are arrested BEFORE you harm somebody, you can say whatever you want so long as you do not encourage violence, etc. you are no barred from smoking, barred from drinking alcohol, arrested for not being a threat, etc

It's not just hippies that do this. Know-it-all soccer moms that watch Oprah for all their life advice is a new trend. Jenny McCarthy's nonsense actually influenced lots of people in the USA, for example. As I said there was a resurgence of whooping cough because more and more people believe her BS, instead of following their doctor's advice.

and this is why they need to go to Oprah, show her the damage that this is doing, and let Oprah announce it on TV. Oprah's stance on it is not going to change if you begin forcing people to do it.

And the amount of people that die as a result of insufficient vaccination far outweighs those that die of vaccine complications.

again, it depends on the time and the community. i agree with you, in india vaccinations are next to hopeless due to poverty and over population

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Based on what?

How the law stands now? How the law shoulds stand in the future?

As I already said in my very first post, ATM = No, In the future if vaccines become compulsory = Yes.

However as you politely pointed out to googoodoll, did you even read the OP? The guy isn't talking about in the future he's talking about criminal negligence now, he also doesn't care about compulsory/voluntary.

That itself is a load of crock.

I was referring to this discussion in general, no the OP specifically.

But something being compulsory/voluntary isn't the only grounds for something being criminally negligent, though, is it? If you leave a knife out on the tabletop and your kid's friend stabs himself with it and dies, can you as a parent be sued for criminal negligence?

That very line is the reason criminal negligence will never work, all a parent will need to prove is that one person has died of a vaccine complication to blow criminal negligence out the water.

Eh, how do you figure? We know why people die from vaccine complications. We also know why they die if someone isn't vaccinated.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

those laws do not remove your freedom however, they limit them from infringing on others. you can still smoke if you choose but not around those that do not want the smoke, if you are caught drunk driving you are arrested BEFORE you harm somebody, you can say whatever you want so long as you do not encourage violence, etc. you are no barred from smoking, barred from drinking alcohol, arrested for not being a threat, etc

Of course they do. You're not allowed to do those things the way you might want to. Freedom impeded. You also don't have complete freedom of movement, for example. Try walking into a prison or military base. And saying you can say whatever you want so long as you do not encourage violence means precisely that you can't say whatever you want. Freedom impeded again.

And I'd say an argument could be made that by not vaccinating you're infringing on the rights of not only your own kid, but also the children of others.

and this is why they need to go to Oprah, show her the damage that this is doing, and let Oprah announce it on TV. Oprah's stance on it is not going to change if you begin forcing people to do it.

Sure, but we're talking about people who know this, and still refuses to vaccinate. What about them, and when their actions lead to the deaths of others?

again, it depends on the time and the community. i agree with you, in india vaccinations are next to hopeless due to poverty and over population

Not really. Imagine an epidemic in those conditions.

 

[KalMaverick]

I was referring to this discussion in general, no the OP specifically.

Then no problem. I take it then you think at the moment it is not realistic either?

But something being compulsory/voluntary isn't the only grounds for something being criminally negligent, though, is it? If you leave a knife out on the tabletop and your kid's friend stabs himself with it and dies, can you as a parent be sued for criminal negligence?

No definitely not, I agree. However in this case I do not see any other way to make it criminally negligent.

I don't think that they should be able to be charged with criminal negligence, no.

Eh, how do you figure? We know why people die from vaccine complications. We also know why they die if someone isn't vaccinated.

I'm trying to say that when the person is in court, the mere fact it is known that, although a small probability, a vaccination can result in a death what court is going to say the parent is criminally negligent by not vaccinating their child when such a possibility still exists?

I'm just saying how everything stands now the idea is preposterous.

 

[Jab]

If people are afraid of real vaccine related side effects (not the autism nonsense), the responsible parent will have his child tested for these rather than leaving them vaccinated.

 

[STS]

If people are afraid of real vaccine related side effects (not the autism nonsense), the responsible parent will have his child tested for these rather than leaving them vaccinated.

I agree with this, i just feel it should be encouraged before they get vaccinations

 

[MrGray]

The problem is one of trust.

The truth is only emerging now that 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine within an 8-year span when a proportion of the vaccine was contaminated with a cancer causing polyomavirus called SV40 in the 1960's. Who knows what hard to detect strains of which viruses might be lurking in these vaccinations only to see the light of day 50 yrs from now?

Sure, vaccines have dramatically reduced infectious disease, but at what hidden long term cost? SV40 has been theorized to be behind the increase in leukemia and other cancers in later life.

Yes, the original autism scare study was a fraud BUT there has been a >80% increase in autism spectrum disorders in the last few decades, and whether or not related, it does correlate with increased vaccination schedules over the same period.

It's easy for the medical community to say trust us - you don't know what you're talking about, you're just an idiot lay person. It's equally easy for them to say 50 yrs down the line - oops sorry, we infected half the population with a cancer causing virus.

In any case, the average GP, as much as the pooh pooh the concerns and sound so re-assuring, is not a biomedical scientist and mostly don't know much more about a specific vaccine than the package insert and the literature the manufacturers hand out.

I recently required a yellow fever vaccination even though the region I was visiting hasn't had a case in 35yrs but the regulations have never changed. It knocked me out for four days with all the same symptoms as the first phase of the disease. I asked the doctor about this, and he said yip, about 5% of people who get the vaccine get the same ("flu-like" yeah right) symptoms as actual yellow fever. Now in reality, 95% of people who contract yellow fever only have mild flu-like symptoms - the danger is if it develops to the more severe second hemorrhagic phase. There is no doubt that I was effectively given yellow fever from this vaccination - so would I ever recommend this for a child? Hell no. And, seriously, is the 1 in 10000 chance of seizures, neurological damage and post-vaccinal encephalitis worth it to visit a region that hasn't had the disease for decades?

 

[HapticSimian]

The problem is one of trust.

The truth is only emerging now that 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine within an 8-year span when a proportion of the vaccine was contaminated with a cancer causing polyomavirus called SV40 in the 1960's. Who knows what hard to detect strains of which viruses might be lurking in these vaccinations only to see the light of day 50 yrs from now?

...

I would hazard that precautionary methods for detecting possibly harmful contaminants have probably come along a bit in almost 65 years. I don't want to take issue with the sentiment of your post, but this just speaks to something I see often and really don't get: it seems an inordinately difficult concept for many to grasp that science is by its nature cumulative. It certainly doesn't immunise us (heh) against unwitting mistakes, but such events are ever less likely to be repeated.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Then no problem. I take it then you think at the moment it is not realistic either?

Well, yes. It's a very difficult one, and the very nature of human interaction makes something like this even more problematic.

No definitely not, I agree. However in this case I do not see any other way to make it criminally negligent.

I don't think that they should be able to be charged with criminal negligence, no.

Yeah, I agree with that, I think. You'd need a leg to stand on if you want to prosecute someone for criminal negligence.

I'm trying to say that when the person is in court, the mere fact it is known that, although a small probability, a vaccination can result in a death what court is going to say the parent is criminally negligent by not vaccinating their child when such a possibility still exists?

Because the diseases that are curbed by vaccination are more harmful to more people than the vaccine complications. As I said earlier, one kid dying from a complication (which is tragic, obviously) is not as bad as a diphtheria outbreak, for example.

This is part of where it gets tricky. How can it be just to dump all that responsibility (which the person supposedly neglected) on one person? You can't blame one person for a diphtheria outbreak, for example. But what are you going to do, charge every parent that didn't have their child vaccinated, regardless of their known contact with others?

But let's narrow it down for argument's sake.

Parent A decides they don't want to vaccinate against polio. Their kid goes to a creche where another toddler can't be vaccinated as a result of an allergy. Parent A's kid picks up the polio virus somewhere, and then subsequently transmits it to the toddler. The toddler dies as a result. Why should Parent A not be held responsible, at least to some extent, for the toddler's death?

I'm just saying how everything stands now the idea is preposterous.

And what if it becomes mandatory by law, would your position change?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I would hazard that precautionary methods for detecting possibly harmful contaminants have probably come along a bit in almost 65 years. I don't want to take issue with the sentiment of your post, but this just speaks to something I see often and really don't get: it seems an inordinately difficult concept for many to grasp that science is by its nature cumulative. It certainly doesn't immunise us (heh) against unwitting mistakes, but such events are ever less likely to be repeated.

Yeah, and the solution isn't to throw out the tool we know works, but to improve where possible.

 

[STS]

The problem is one of trust.

The truth is only emerging now that 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine within an 8-year span when a proportion of the vaccine was contaminated with a cancer causing polyomavirus called SV40 in the 1960's. Who knows what hard to detect strains of which viruses might be lurking in these vaccinations only to see the light of day 50 yrs from now?

Sure, vaccines have dramatically reduced infectious disease, but at what hidden long term cost? SV40 has been theorized to be behind the increase in leukemia and other cancers in later life.

Yes, the original autism scare study was a fraud BUT there has been a >80% increase in autism spectrum disorders in the last few decades, and whether or not related, it does correlate with increased vaccination schedules over the same period.

It's easy for the medical community to say trust us - you don't know what you're talking about, you're just an idiot lay person. It's equally easy for them to say 50 yrs down the line - oops sorry, we infected half the population with a cancer causing virus.

In any case, the average GP, as much as the pooh pooh the concerns and sound so re-assuring, is not a biomedical scientist and mostly don't know much more about a specific vaccine than the package insert and the literature the manufacturers hand out.

I recently required a yellow fever vaccination even though the region I was visiting hasn't had a case in 35yrs but the regulations have never changed. It knocked me out for four days with all the same symptoms as the first phase of the disease. I asked the doctor about this, and he said yip, about 5% of people who get the vaccine get the same ("flu-like" yeah right) symptoms as actual yellow fever. Now in reality, 95% of people who contract yellow fever only have mild flu-like symptoms - the danger is if it develops to the more severe second hemorrhagic phase. There is no doubt that I was effectively given yellow fever from this vaccination - so would I ever recommend this for a child? Hell no. And, seriously, is the 1 in 10000 chance of seizures, neurological damage and post-vaccinal encephalitis worth it to visit a region that hasn't had the disease for decades?

same effect i had with the flu vaccine - never had such terrible flu in my life, and i doubt that it was coincidence. i almost lost my job from the amount of time i took off

 

[KalMaverick]

Parent A decides they don't want to vaccinate against polio. Their kid goes to a creche where another toddler can't be vaccinated as a result of an allergy. Parent A's kid picks up the polio virus somewhere, and then subsequently transmits it to the toddler. The toddler dies as a result. Why should Parent A not be held responsible, at least to some extent, for the toddler's death?

In my opinion the other parent's knew the risk in sending their kid to a creche that has unvaccinated children there (or could have reasonably be expected to know), the creche itself also took the risk of allowing unvaccinated children and vaccinated children together.

How then do we hold only the parents of the unvaccinated responsible (when they just didn't want their child to be that small % that has complications, do you see the parents only want to keep their child safe, however silly it might be) when there are at least another two parties who allowed this to happen? Do you see how now we can start finding almost anyone responsible?

I do not know the law on whether creche's/schools are allowed to refuse entry to non-vaccinated children, so that's another issue to consider.

And what if it becomes mandatory by law, would your position change?

I have said so already, yes. If you are (with very few exceptions) required to be vaccinated then it would be criminal not to get vaccinated and THEN I feel criminal negligence is applicable.

Whether it should be mandatory or not is as you have posted a separate discussion.