or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Should non-vaxers be held liable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should non-vaxers be held liable? - Page 3

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by paquerette View Post
Why aren't people who receive shedding vaccines held responsible for the instances where they transmit them to the immunocompromised, newborns, etc? Or, why aren't doctors and clinics advising people who receive these that they shed and that they should be quarantining themselves/their children?
As I stated earlier, this doesn't bug me. I know there are too many unknown variables out there to control. With that said, every time I've recieved a vaccine, or my kid's have, that have the tendency to be transmitted for a specific period of time, I have always been informed. For instance, when dss was given the varicella (I didn't get that for him, his mother did) she was told not to allow him near anyone not vaccinated, or anyone under 1 yr. old for, if I remember right, 10 days. We had to skip our visitation with him because we had an infant at that time. So, there is a bit of liability there. If those parents aren't being held to the same standard as non-vaxers then there is a huge bias being played out in the courts and that definately needs to be remedied. Just wanted to say, I agree with your point, it either needs to be across the board, or noone should be held liable.
post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aloha girl View Post
I absolutely think that a non vaccinating parents should be held responsible and liable if their non vaccinated child with sickness infects say a new born baby or some other kind of case like that.
I agree.

Proving it is another thing.

I would never take my children near a newborn child. In bygone days, this was the way things were done. There was a reason for it. We think we are passed that with our modern ways and we are not.

Just to let you know, I have posted this many times on this forum before, but I have had a friend who was in Stage 4 cancer and was told by his oncologist team to avoid recently vaccinated children.

Not unvaccinated children.

Recently vaccinated children.

Why would an oncologist say that?

Because the vaccinated child is a carrier and transmitter of the disease that they have recently been vaccinated against, that is why, and a person who is immunocompromised can become more ill by just being in the presence of a child who is shedding a live virus or transmitting pertussis.

This is true of transplant recipients.
post #43 of 80
^ Exactly. My MIL was going through chemotherapy when my daughter was born. Her doctor told her that, sadly, she wouldn't be able to visit us because she needed to stay away from recently vaccinated children. But, since we don't vaccinate, she was over just about every day.

My next door neighbor would get her "baby fix" with my kids (she's a multiple transplant recipient) because my kids are unvaxed (and not sick, of course--meaning that they weren't sick/recently knowingly exposed) and all of her grandkids were...so she would spend time at my house for her baby fix.

I do not think that parents of unvaxed kids should be held liable. How would you prove it? You don't culture a strain of disease and it is labeled as "from Susie Smith, 1234 American Way, Mycity, IL". The truth is...you can catch a disease from anyone at anytime and anywhere. Just because Susie Smith had the chicken pox just after she visited your home doesn't mean that SHE was the one who your child caught it from. They could have both caught it from the recently vaxed kid who went to school just after his vax at the doctor's. And if you have a school-aged child and an infant, your child would be the most likely source of illness.

So, I think it would lead to a lot of false prosecutions of innocent people. Prove you absolutely got a disease from a certain person and prosecute (which is easier if you had 1 sexual partner and got AIDS from them) than to prove that a specific person absolutely gave your child measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc...no way.
post #44 of 80
Like I said, the burden of proof would be whatever is set by the court. Very rarely are court cases like this cut and dry (ie, a video tape!)..and if they are that obvious, they rarely make it to the courtroom I would think.

I could see the same situation I have talked about with the doctor's office being an area of liability for those who vaccinate as well. In our local hospital system and our doc office that works out of there, there are rules concerning "recently vaccinated" people and visitation and use of certain waiting rooms; you are asked to speak with the desk if you have been around someone with a contagious disease on the list, recently vaccinated with something on the list, etc.
post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
Like I said, the burden of proof would be whatever is set by the court. Very rarely are court cases like this cut and dry (ie, a video tape!)..and if they are that obvious, they rarely make it to the courtroom I would think.
But, how would you define the burden of proof? I can easily see it being, "Yes my child got chicken pox and the unvaxed kid down the street had chicken pox at about the same time, so my child must have caught it from him/her." And then there is the whole, not every person who is a carrier is showing outward signs of the disease. Like I said, it would be easier to prove getting a sexually transmitted disease from someone than it would be to prove any other disease (whooping cough, mumps, measles, rubella, chicken pox, etc).

Quote:
I could see the same situation I have talked about with the doctor's office being an area of liability for those who vaccinate as well. In our local hospital system and our doc office that works out of there, there are rules concerning "recently vaccinated" people and visitation and use of certain waiting rooms; you are asked to speak with the desk if you have been around someone with a contagious disease on the list, recently vaccinated with something on the list, etc.
And then what about the kids who go in for a check-up, have been unknowingly exposed, are in the most contagious stage (before any symptoms appear) and spread it around the office unknowingly? Your doctor's office scenario works fine if the parent knows that their child was exposed/etc. But, there are a lot of times where parents do not know and have no clue where their kid picked up the disease. Would the doctor be held liable there?

This is a very slippery slope and it would just make an already overburdened litigious society even more so. Germs, viruses and bacteria are uncontrollable. You cannot control where they go or who they visit. If you choose to vaccinate your children against the risk, that's fine...but to hold other parents "liable" is opening up a can of worms that once open, I think many would regret.
post #46 of 80
If you really want to know how it works and plays out in real life, you can easily read about the tort (i blieve this is the right word). I know it exists in many states.
post #47 of 80
Another thought to throw in the discussion, something that was not mentioned....and please know, this is NOT a slam against immigrants. My grandparents were Czechoslovakian immigrants (father's side, proud of it ), and in reality, all Americans are immigrants!
But, for the discussion, how do you account for all of the undocumented immigrants that come into the country? Many of them are undocumented (I hate to call it "illegal") and I wonder how many of them are vaccinated? And since they have no documents, you can never know how they might factor into the equation. We're talking millions of people, folks. In reality, it is impossible to have a fully vaxxed population. The idea to persecute non-vaxxers is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
Another thought to throw in the discussion, something that was not mentioned....and please know, this is NOT a slam against immigrants. My grandparents were Czechoslovakian immigrants (father's side, proud of it ), and in reality, all Americans are immigrants!
But, for the discussion, how do you account for all of the undocumented immigrants that come into the country? Many of them are undocumented (I hate to call it "illegal") and I wonder how many of them are vaccinated? And since they have no documents, you can never know how they might factor into the equation. We're talking millions of people, folks. In reality, it is impossible to have a fully vaxxed population. The idea to persecute non-vaxxers is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.
I would hope that as a society we wouldn't persecute non-vaxxers. But if someone through their decisions or circumstances causes others harm, I think we should be able to prosecute.
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
I would hope that as a society we wouldn't persecute non-vaxxers. But if someone through their decisions or circumstances causes others harm, I think we should be able to prosecute.
How would you define what/who caused the harm? Say my kid gets the measles and passes them on to someone else. That person gets very ill. However, that child was not breastfed, ate a "normal American" diet, and used fever-reducers while ill. Seems convenient to blame my kid for that kid's illness, but the state of that child's immune system was a major factor that was out of my control and likely played a major role in how the illness progressed. Do you then hold the parents responsible and prosecute them, or just me?
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
Many of them are undocumented (I hate to call it "illegal") and I wonder how many of them are vaccinated? And since they have no documents, you can never know how they might factor into the equation. We're talking millions of people, folks. In reality, it is impossible to have a fully vaxxed population. The idea to persecute non-vaxxers is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.
In the CA pertussis epidemic, the first nine of the ten who have died were in the immigrant communities.

As a culture, the immigrants do vaccinate their children as a rule, but do not typically breastfeed, and live with many adults to a household; yet the state, county and city governments are blaming the non-vaxers for spreading the pertussis.
post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ammiga View Post
How would you define what/who caused the harm? Say my kid gets the measles and passes them on to someone else. That person gets very ill. However, that child was not breastfed, ate a "normal American" diet, and used fever-reducers while ill. Seems convenient to blame my kid for that kid's illness, but the state of that child's immune system was a major factor that was out of my control and likely played a major role in how the illness progressed. Do you then hold the parents responsible and prosecute them, or just me?
If the state of the child's immune system due to his upbringing were truly an issue, I would expect is parents to be prosecuted as well. The point of going to a trial would be to determine which factors were most likely to have contributed to the illness following a preponderance of evidence.
post #52 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
If the state of the child's immune system due to his upbringing were truly an issue, I would expect is parents to be prosecuted as well. The point of going to a trial would be to determine which factors were most likely to have contributed to the illness following a preponderance of evidence.
Unfortunately, though, these things (formula feeding, eating a "normal American diet", treating fever with OTC painkillers) are very mainstream and normalized. It is highly unlikely that his parents would ever be prosecuted on the basis of making these potentially immune compromising decisions. And the idea that they might be prosecuted for such decisions (even in the name of fairness) opens up a very scary can of worms. Where does that line of thinking end?
post #53 of 80
Yes, if they are involved with the parent's choice of nutrition, we might as well give up! For one example, what is the FDA's recommended dose for Vitamin C? It is awfully low. If the government is in charge of telling us what we are allowed to feed our children, I fear for all of us! The fact that the FDA allows aspartame to be consumed is another frightening subject. Do some basic research on aspartame--the health hazards, lab studies, and most interesting, how it came to be approved for consumption.
post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
If the state of the child's immune system due to his upbringing were truly an issue, I would expect is parents to be prosecuted as well. The point of going to a trial would be to determine which factors were most likely to have contributed to the illness following a preponderance of evidence.
This is a conflation of the notions of civil and criminal law, at least in the U.S. The standard of "preponderance of the evidence" applies in civil actions; "prosecutions" are criminal. In any event, in civil law, inaction is not generally a basis for recovery, which is one of the reasons a separate duty to vaccinate is fanciful. In a case of actual negligent transmission, though, "the state of the child's immune system," as presented--basically, an inference based on parenting practices and a folk conception of biology--would likely go nowhere fast.
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ammiga View Post
How would you define what/who caused the harm? Say my kid gets the measles and passes them on to someone else. That person gets very ill. However, that child was not breastfed, ate a "normal American" diet, and used fever-reducers while ill. Seems convenient to blame my kid for that kid's illness, but the state of that child's immune system was a major factor that was out of my control and likely played a major role in how the illness progressed. Do you then hold the parents responsible and prosecute them, or just me?
If your child was infected with measles and you knowingly sent him/her out in public while still contagious then yes, I do believe you should be held responsible if others were infected as a result. Regardless of the lifestyle of that child, they would not have been suffering at all had they not been exposed in the first place. Formula and eating a typical diet cannot be blamed in this case.
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post
This is a conflation of the notions of civil and criminal law, at least in the U.S. The standard of "preponderance of the evidence" applies in civil actions; "prosecutions" are criminal. In any event, in civil law, inaction is not generally a basis for recovery, which is one of the reasons a separate duty to vaccinate is fanciful. In a case of actual negligent transmission, though, "the state of the child's immune system," as presented--basically, an inference based on parenting practices and a folk conception of biology--would likely go nowhere fast.
In the US we have both civil and criminal prosecutions. In a case like this where we are talking about liability, both types of prosecution could be possible. I don't know enough about this possible future law to know if it would be a strict liability issue or not (meaning that on neither the criminal nor civil side would the prosecution need to prove you intended harm, only that your product or actions caused the harm). If it was it would probably be an infraction which AFAIK has a much lower standard for determining guilt.

But yes, I doubt that there is anything scientific available to reduce liability because the other parent used formula or Tylenol. At best an expert witness in naturopathic medicine could be called. But they would have to be a pretty good expert witness.
post #57 of 80
We have legal right not to vaccinate. Holding people who chose not to vaccinate liable sounds like it would become a modern day witch hunt.
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyaW View Post
We have legal right not to vaccinate. Holding people who chose not to vaccinate liable sounds like it would become a modern day witch hunt.
Absolutely, but choosing not to vax also comes with responsibility. At the same time you also have the responsibility of keeping your child while contagious away from those who may be infected from exposure. If a parent KNOWINGLY takes a child who is still contagious out and then infects another person then yes, you should be responsible for your decision.
post #59 of 80
I can understand your point of view and I would avoid taking my sick child out, knowingly infecting others. But what if I take my fully vaccinated child out (hypothetically speaking) who has the flu but I thought was fully recovered or did not yet know and some pregnant woman or baby gets it resulting in serious complications or death. Should I be held responsible? Like I said, it would be a witch hunt because someone is unvaccinated. No one is held liable now if you catch the flu or some other bug from them and have serious complications or death regardless of vaccination status.
post #60 of 80
There are diseases that you can be held liable today for infecting people due to your carelessness or disregard for public health and safety. HIV, Tuberculosis, SARs. It's not too common in this day and age, but it can and does happen.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Should non-vaxers be held liable?