What are your thoughts on possible legal consequences of selective or not vaccinating? (spin off)

[MissRubyandKen]

The 'Could this really happen?' thread has me really thinking about the possibility of future legal consequences of selective or not vaccinating. This link provided in the thread in particular- An Online Symposium on
Liability for Exercising Personal Belief Exemptions from Vaccination

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.

Six papers, authored by doctors including Dr. Jay Gordon, are available to read. Some for legal consequences, some not.

I find it really disturbing this is targeted at children. No other member of the population is included as being responsible for being vaccinated per recommendations. Or is this just the first step onto a slippery slope? Doctors, the state, CDC, and pharma etc are protected no matter what life consequences the vaccines they recommend or mandate may have on our beloved child. Is this for all vpd's from the flu to varicella to HPV or just the 'important' ones like measles or just those mandated for school entry in your state of residence? I know full well that not all health care workers, judges, and members of the general public are vaccinating per recommendations, nor checking titers.

I would like to ask these doctors- Could you look my daughter in the eye and tell her, 'This vaccine I'm going to inject you with has a small chance of harming or killing you, and it might make you feel sick. It might keep you or other children and babies from getting sick and some even from dying. The small risk that you will be hurt or die is worth the possible benefit to other children and babies who are not as healthy or strong as you.'

And really how many vaccines can we say are efficient enough at interrupting transmission and where we aren't seeing serotype replacement or replacement disease that any other child is benefiting from my child's risk? The MMR I can possibly see, any other I should consider?

[PaigeC]

I haven't had a chance to read them all yet but two words come to mind: religious exemption.

[MissRubyandKen]

Two more- home school. But this goes beyond that I believe. It isn't about exemptions so much as finding a way to gain compliance from more people and considering legal consequences on parents whether they are 'exempt' or not.

[caned & able]

One of the landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with state requirements for vaccinations and vaccinations being the best way to contain an epidemic (smallpox) was Jacobson versus Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11,25, 1905.

The court held that the law that required compulsory vaccination is a valid exercise of the police powers of the state to control the health of its citizens.

This same case was used in 1927 by Oliver Wendell Holmes to allow sterilization of the unfit and in Virginia.

As for using a religious exemption for your dc, see Prince versus Massachusetts 321 U.S. 158, 1944:

The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community of the child,...

Certainly there have been many other cases since 1944 which could uphold a person's personal and religious beliefs with regard to health and the sanctity of their body. Let us hope the Court sees it that way.

[SunshineJ]

Scary stuff. What I don't get is how could they possible prove it was MY child and my child only that exposed another child to an illness? Perhaps another child had just received a vaccination and was contagious from that (certainly NOT unheard of whatsoever!). This sounds more and more like a witch hunt every day.

[ericswifey27]

Wow, totally disgusting

I don't see how they could prove it was my child that passed on the illness anyway.

Plus if they were ever to allow this line of reasoning, then could not anyone claim the same thing- your vaccinated child passed a live virus to my child (vaccinated or unvaccinated, since immunity is not guaranteed)

[poppan]

I'm really not too worried for now -- as others have said, it might be hard to prove (although with measles they seem to be able to test and see what strain you have -- and in at least one paper I read, they were able to identify "patient zero" because it is inevitably brought back from Europe or Asia...). And, more importantly, I don't think it would hold up in court because adults are not required to be vax'd or re-vax'd, and at least some of the transmission is through adults who are only mildly ill or completely asymptomatic.

Now, if they ever manage to come up with an actual mandate that you must vax -- i.e., if they did away with the religious and personal belief exemptions -- at that point I would be worried, because legally they would have a lot more of a leg to stand on. I would be in actual violation if I went against a mandate and essentially were breaking the law. As it stands now, I'm exercising an exemption that I am allowed under the law, so I think it would be pretty hard to sue in (whether privately in a civil suit, or publicly).

[Jugs]

I find it amusing that these people find it reasonable to hold individual parents responsible for transmitting disease, but not reasonable to hold manufacturer's responsible for vaccine injuries.

[MissRubyandKen]

Originally Posted by Jugs

I find it amusing that these people find it reasonable to hold individual parents responsible for transmitting disease, but not reasonable to hold manufacturer's responsible for vaccine injuries.

But there is a very good reason for this. Because of so many lawsuits with large sums awarded the manufacturers wouldn't be able to provide vaccines if they weren't protected.

What does this tell us, really?

[Jugs]

Ain't it sweet: no financial liability for their product, guarunteed sales from state mandates, on top of parents being held liable for product failure. A nice tidy package all around.