Michigan Law Review- Online Symposium on liability for vaccine objection

[carriebft]

Online Symposium on
Liability for Exercising Personal Belief Exemptions from Vaccination

Recent outbreaks of diseases such as measles, mumps, and pertussis, which have mostly been eradicated in the United States for decades, have called attention to the increased use of personal belief exemptions (sometimes called philosophical exemptions) to childhood vaccination requirements.

...
With the increased risk that the use of personal belief exemptions will limit the effectiveness of vaccination, this symposium addresses whether parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be liable in tort to individuals who are infected and injured by the unvaccinated children.

read the answers and other info here:
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/index-fi.htm

some of the answers are very ineresting, they are all availble in PDF form by clicking the link above. There are pro and con arguments-- Jay Gordon has written along with others from the AAP.

[peainthepod]

Perhaps parents who allow their children to receive live virus vaccines should be held liable? After all, they're the ones walking around shedding disease. And on what grounds could a vaccinating family sue a non-vaccinating one? After all, if vaccines are so effective, their child shouldn't have gotten a VAD. And if they did get a VAD, shouldn't the vaccinating family sue the vaccine manufacturers for selling a faulty product? And if the argument is that vaccines aren't always effective, why should the vaccinating family expect other families to take on the risk of a vaccine reaction for a vaccine that might not even work?

This is nothing more than legal intimidation and bullying. Ridiculous.

[carriebft]

Dr Gordon's response talks in depth about the impossibility of knowing for sure where the disease came from. Also I think the last response on that page, which I have not gotten through yet, also talks about this.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by peainthepod

Perhaps parents who allow their children to receive live virus vaccines should be held liable? After all, they're the ones walking around shedding disease. And on what grounds could a vaccinating family sue a non-vaccinating one? After all, if vaccines are so effective, their child shouldn't have gotten a VAD. And if they did get a VAD, shouldn't the vaccinating family sue the vaccine manufacturers for selling a faulty product? And if the argument is that vaccines aren't always effective, why should the vaccinating family expect other families to take on the risk of a vaccine reaction for a vaccine that might not even work?

This is nothing more than legal intimidation and bullying. Ridiculous.

Totally agree!!

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by peainthepod

Perhaps parents who allow their children to receive live virus vaccines should be held liable? After all, they're the ones walking around shedding disease. And on what grounds could a vaccinating family sue a non-vaccinating one? After all, if vaccines are so effective, their child shouldn't have gotten a VAD. And if they did get a VAD, shouldn't the vaccinating family sue the vaccine manufacturers for selling a faulty product? And if the argument is that vaccines aren't always effective, why should the vaccinating family expect other families to take on the risk of a vaccine reaction for a vaccine that might not even work?

This is nothing more than legal intimidation and bullying. Ridiculous.

Exactly!

[runes]

This could never happen, because before they do so, they would have to do one of two things:

1. Prove that vaccinations work 100%. Obviously that isn't going to happen.

2. Do titre testing on all vaccinated people to "prove" their immunity. They would never want this to happen because then it will become common knowledge that vaccination does not equal immunity. What if you're one of those people that just doesn't create an immune response to any given vaccine? Do you get some type of "exemption" from being sued because you did get vaxed? What about those who had gotten the disease naturally? Do we all go around with papers that say, for instance, that you had measles naturally and also received the Hep B vaccine, so you can't be sued for those.

There are just waaaaay too many questions that would arise from this and quite frankly, the whole vaccine program exists and persists on misinformation and fear. They really don't want the general public thinking about and asking these types of questions. It's better for them to continue vilifying non/selective/delayed vaccinating families without having people think about concepts like live virus shedding, superior life-long natural immunity, how some vaccines don't prevent transmission and titre testing.

[nicolebeth]

I actually picture people we know filing suit against us if (a) our child contracted measles, and (b) passed it to their under-15 month old child. This is a litigious society. I have had someone say that those who don't vaccinate are spreading diseases (from abroad) like measles "to babies".

So, I'm not surprised this is coming up in a law review article. I wish I had Westlaw access to craft an argument against it. I do think, legally, the religious exemption should be safe.

[mammastar2]

I'll read this tonight.

[Ophelia]

Thanks for posting this!

[anewmama]

I like this by Gordon:

Vaccines work very well at creating immunity to illnesses, so there are very
few situations that would likely lead to transmission of an illness from an
unvaccinated child to a vaccinated child. The obvious exceptions would be
infants too young to have received a full complement of shots and immunocompromised
children. Parents must protect these two groups of children by
keeping them away from too many other children. Period. Newborns and
young babies are at risk any time they are in public. We can only vaccinate
against a very small minority of contagious illnesses; it is unwise to bring
your newborn into preschool when you pick up your toddler, and equally
risky to attend older children’s birthday parties with this baby.

[anewmama]

And this by Gordon,

“Childhood vaccines save 33,000 lives each year in the United States.”
This statement has been made so often that no one seems to question the
absence of logical thinking behind it. The numbers are based on medical
care in the early to mid-1900s. There is no way to estimate how many lives
vaccines are saving, and a similar estimate of harm from vaccines is difficult
to calculate. As a result, a parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child is being
unfairly vilified.

[anewmama]

This sums up my current frustration with the whole vaccine issue. As my daughter nears two, I am "forced" to reevaluate my decision to not vaccinate (though I would never fully vaccinate her). I had decided to at least wait until two to make any further decisions. But this is where I am at.... really struggling with both camps... folks here and all the pro-vaxers who do distort the truth as I see it.

The list of side effects from adverse reactions to vaccines, in a Physicians’
Desk Reference “warning” section, given out of context, would probably
frighten many parents out of vaccinating at all. There are thirty or more
items on that list. Similarly, the list of symptoms and complications of the
illnesses against which we vaccinate could scare parents into giving every
shot available as soon as possible.
Pediatricians and other physicians use the latter option on a daily basis. I
share my colleagues’ disdain for scare tactics from the “antivaccine” camp,
but I object equally to doctors using fear and misinformation to try to convince
parents (and legislators) that vaccines are risk free. Both sides are
distorting the truth for their own purposes. Childhood illnesses are part of
the first decade of life; immunity is acquired, and the consequences are almost
always minor

[Full Heart]

Given the logic shouldn't vaxing parents sue the drs/pharma/gov who told them that vaxes were necessary to protect their children?

My kids all got wc from a vaxed child at school who was there because they couldn't possible have wc, they are vaxed. Should I sue them?

I also love how it points out that the people who don't vax are now higher income and better educated. So see its ok to sue them, they have money! Don't sue the poor people, they don't know any better.

[chaoticzenmom]

Also, we're just an individualist society. You can't sue someone for not putting themselves at risk for your benefit. I'm not going to risk harming my children for the sake of someone else.

I don't think there would be any liablility possible, especially since people have the right not to vaccinate. There's no law being broken.

[buttercupmama]

You would think these people would be smart enough to see that the ones at risk are the unvaccinated--if they truly believe vaccination works. I guess there is a difference between book sense and common sense.

ETA: There's no way this will fly because then they'll be saying it's okay for some parents to make this decision for their child, but not others. Can't have their cake and eat it too. The only way will be if they make it against the law not to vaccinate, and even then no family would be able to sue another.

[MaryLang]

Oh wow. A Michigander here, seeing this for the first time and getting pi$$'d. Aren't there WAY more things to be worried about in this state?!!!
The thought that ANY of this is even taking up a second of anyones time politcally? Seriously? I would think it'd work in reverse, your vax'ed kid infected my non-vax'd kid.

[Scattershoot]

this symposium addresses whether parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be liable in tort to individuals who are infected and injured by the unvaccinated children

Since states allow for exemptions, the standard of care aspect of tort would be hard to be met in holding non-vaxing parents responsible. That responsiblity would flow back to the entity that allowed for the non-vacciantion to begin with, which would be the states. So, the exemptions would have to be eliminated first. The consequence to this would be everyone would have to vaccinate by law. They couldn't just say, you have to do something. There would have to be a law to make it so. If there were a vaccine law set in place, then states or the Federal government would then be held to a higher standard of care. As it is now, ultimately a parent has a choice to vaccinate (a couple of states make it harder), so one could argue that you didn't have to vaccinate if your child is injured. Take that away and make it law, and the lawsuits could pour in for responsibility of vaccine injury. You made me do it, so you pay for it.

[Lilcrunchie]

Should we sue parents who vaccinate when new diseases emerge, like 19A as related to Prevnar? This one causes an ear infection that is antibiotic resistant. How about other new strains that may emerge and take hold to fill the vacuum?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...72804019_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...bacteria_N.htm

Vaxed children who are silent reservoirs for pertussis infection?
Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm

Adults contracting more shingles from the loss of the natural immunity boosting from circulating chicken pox...should they sue those who vax?
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr...e-chickenpox23
(eta: and shingles vax is only about 50% effective, and IIRC the insert questions how effective it is in immune compromised or the most elderly patients)

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Lilcrunchie

Should we sue parents who vaccinate when new diseases emerge, like 19A as related to Prevnar? This one causes an ear infection that is antibiotic resistant. How about other new strains that may emerge and take hold to fill the vacuum?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...72804019_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...bacteria_N.htm

Vaxed children who are silent reservoirs for pertussis infection?
Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm

Adults contracting more shingles from the loss of the natural immunity boosting from circulating chicken pox...should they sue those who vax?
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr...e-chickenpox23
(eta: and shingles vax is only about 50% effective, and IIRC the insert questions how effective it is in immune compromised or the most elderly patients)

:

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by Lilcrunchie

Adults contracting more shingles from the loss of the natural immunity boosting from circulating chicken pox...should they sue those who vax?

Yeah.. that sure pees me off. :