Should non-vaxers be held liable? - Page 4

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton

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.

No, formula and diet and drugs cannot be blamed for exposure, but they could certainly be blamed for an extreme case of measles that may cause damages. If the kid just gets sick, but gets better with no complications, there is no case. A case would only be started if there were damages, and for the vast majority of American children, a real look would need to be had into the lifestyle that their parents created and the resulting effect it had on their child's immune system. Sounds like an awfully scary road to head down.

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by ammiga

No, formula and diet and drugs cannot be blamed for exposure, but they could certainly be blamed for an extreme case of measles that may cause damages. If the kid just gets sick, but gets better with no complications, there is no case. A case would only be started if there were damages, and for the vast majority of American children, a real look would need to be had into the lifestyle that their parents created and the resulting effect it had on their child's immune system. Sounds like an awfully scary road to head down.

There is absolutely no way to link conclusively formula consumption and severity of an illness. What if a child with a supressed immune system was the one infected - in your opinion would that be the same as possibly eating a non-organic diet? Regardless, even if a child leads a less than ideal lifestyle if someone KNOWINGLY exposes them to a disease that they may not have ever contracted otherwise then the blame lies on the decisions of the infected
person (or their parents). I believe the same standards should be held for those who were vaccinated and still got sick - if you or child is (even possibly) contagious - stay away from people who are uninformed about the risk of catching something from you.

[Arduinna]

hmm we need a poll. I'm really curious how many people here come in regular contact with pro vaxers that don't even care that they are sick and just go about their business? Because I can tell you my mom does this all the time, and she is boostered up with everything, gets her flu shot every year and still doesn't give a flip if she comes over and infects us.

Unlike me, that stays home when I'm sick.

But by all means, the thread title says. Should non-vaxers be held liable. Not should sick people be held liable.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton

There is absolutely no way to link conclusively formula consumption and severity of an illness. What if a child with a supressed immune system was the one infected - in your opinion would that be the same as possibly eating a non-organic diet? Regardless, even if a child leads a less than ideal lifestyle if someone KNOWINGLY exposes them to a disease that they may not have ever contracted otherwise then the blame lies on the decisions of the infected
person (or their parents). I believe the same standards should be held for those who were vaccinated and still got sick - if you or child is (even possibly) contagious - stay away from people who are uninformed about the risk of catching something from you.

There is a ton of research stating that breastmilk, especially exclusive breastfeeding for a minimum of 6 months, builds a stronger immune system than formula. Likewise, it's pretty easy to find studies about diet, and even Tylenol. If blame is going to be passed around to non-vaxers, it should also go to parents who don't give their children immune systems to optimally combat illnesses.

[junipermuse]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

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.

It's not exactly the same thing. You can be held liable for knowingly spreading AIDS, but you wouldn't be held liable for having sex without a condom if you didn't know you had the disease. So sure taking you're kid all around town when you know they have a disease that could kill people might be similar to the AIDS situation (also would have nothing to do with vax status), but not preventing the spread of something you don't know you have, even if you could have followed prevention protocol anyway isn't something we currently prosecute against. I mean yes AIDS transmission could (not 100% but neither is vax) have been prevented by wearing a condom, but it's perfectly legal to choose not to wear one. I do understand that this is slightly different because there are two consenting parties in this case. But what about SARS. While I think you could be held liable for knowingly spreading it. I don't think you'd be held liable just for going to country where there were a lot of cases. If you don't travel to that country your risk of contracting and therefore spreading the disease is diminished, but I doubt you'd be prosecuted for going if you later unknowingly transmitted the disease to someone else.

[Petie1104]

Originally Posted by ammiga

There is a ton of research stating that breastmilk, especially exclusive breastfeeding for a minimum of 6 months, builds a stronger immune system than formula. Likewise, it's pretty easy to find studies about diet, and even Tylenol. If blame is going to be passed around to non-vaxers, it should also go to parents who don't give their children immune systems to optimally combat illnesses.

While I know the effects of breastfeeding, I have to say that it would play minimally. Breastfeeding is known to boost the child's natural immune system, so if a child naturally has a low immune system, it will boost it some, not make them healthy. I have a child that was nursed for almost a year and has a horrible immune system. He catches EVERYTHING. We watch his diet, he only takes tylenol if his fever is over 103. So rarely if ever. Yet, he still gets horribly sick. I have a daughter, who due to her being hospitalized at 4 months, I had to stop bf'ing. This child has an immune system that I think would bring the plague to a raging halt.LOL. No joke, the kids all got swine flu, she was sick for about 24 hrs. The whole family got a 36 hr. stomach bug, she was sick for 2 hrs. Not exaggerating, this is our reality. So, honestly, if they had the proof that their child was infected by yours, I highly doubt that whether they bf'ed or ate organic or fed their child tylenol would be a huge factor.

[NaturalBirthGoddes]

It still doesn't change the fact that there are several vaccines that shed for x amount of days after administration. What about those parents who get their kids vaxed with the chicken pox and then send them right back to school? Would the be able to be charged with negligence?

I see my child getting sick and I keep them home (not just for the protection of society, but to also allow my child time to build the immune system back up). If my child came into contact with a vaccinated child and got the chicken pox and then 2 other kids got sick...I would be held liable because my child is not vaxed and 2 other kids got the pox (assumed) from her. There is no way. That scenario is very possible and creates a very slippery slope.

Again, how would you prove who got whom sick? You can prove sexually transmitted diseases...but germs/viruses/bacteria--those float around and you can pick them up unknowingly. So how do you really prove who did it?

Also, most people are contagious before they ever show symptoms...how do you prove negligence if you do not know you are contagious and you are out in public. Should non-vaxed kids never leave their homes for fear of possibly infecting someone??

[junipermuse]

Originally Posted by caned & able

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.

Can you share the source of this info? I have been really wanting more info about who the children who died were. Since there have been so many cases in CA it doesn't surprise me that it's in a population that has other risk factors for bad outcomes.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by junipermuse

But what about SARS. While I think you could be held liable for knowingly spreading it.

Knowingly spreading an infectious disease is separate from negligently doing so, mainly in that intentional torts open the door to punitive damages. But all of this already applies regardless of vax status.

[Fillyjonk]

"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. "

I really agree that parents who knowingly allow their child to potentially infect others, without their consent, are morally responsible here, but I'm interested in how this could play out legally.

I'm in the UK not the US, but I think our legal systems are pretty similar-do you guys not have laws about transmission of infectious diseases? I'm not up on this law but I'd guess prosecution would not need to show intent, only negligence, ie lack of care. To my mind, to take a child known to be suffering from measles out and about would constitute negligence with regard to exposing others to an infectious disease. It wouldn't much matter why a child had measles-whether through having refused vaccination, having had the vaccine fail, or being immunosuppressed and so unable to recive the vaccination.

Its an interesting question though as to whether parents who refused vaccination could be prosecuted or sued. What's the period when these diseases are infectious? Is it before the appearance of symptoms? If so, actually I can really see theoretically how not vaccinating could open a parent up to either a civil or a criminal action for negligence.

And actually, this isn't something that needs to happen on a state level. Certainly in the UK, afaik, it would be technically possible to bring a civil action for negligence against parents who, through not having taken what the court considered sufficient care, allowed their child to infect another, with financially measurable consequences. For a civil case, the standard of proof would be the balance of probabilities (its not unknown for civil cases to be brought after criminal prosecutions fail, just because the burden of proof is lower). I think a criminal prosecution would really struggle, and would ultimately fail at having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the disease had been transmitted by child x

OTOH the worst that can happen after being found guilty in the civil courts is that you have to pay up to the person who brought the case against you. And tbh, it costs a lot of money to go through the civil courts, especially, I'm guessing, in America. AND individuals are seldom targeted because what's the point? They don't have usually have that much money, so the most likely outcome if they get a bill for $1 million is that they may end up bankrupt. Which may be emotionally satisfying for the party bringing the case, but long term who wins?

[carriebft]

OTOH the worst that can happen after being found guilty in the civil courts is that you have to pay up to the person who brought the case against you. And tbh, it costs a lot of money to go through the civil courts, especially, I'm guessing, in America. AND individuals are seldom targeted because what's the point? They don't have usually have that much money, so the most likely outcome if they get a bill for $1 million is that they may end up bankrupt. Which may be emotionally satisfying for the party bringing the case, but long term who wins?

In a case of serious injury from the disease, such as those kids who came down with SSPE or with those two infants being infected on that flight, if SSPE were to set in down the road for them-- I could see it being worth it to the family to fight in court to help pay the expenses. But, of course, who knows what the statue of limitations would be (or is?) since SSPE can take 8 years or more to set in after infection, though sometimes less with infant infection.

But as another poster said, this is more of a discussion of spreading disease and not really about being unvaccinated. I think she has a point there. However, there could be a higher degree of negligence-- look at those Irish kids on that flight. MMR stops measles transmission but since they were unvaccinated, exposed, and showing symptoms, I could see them losing the ability to argue "we didn't know", kwim? there wa virtually no chance they were immune, but, if they had been vaccinated, esp with 2 doses, then they would have a 98-99% chance of being immune.

[Petie1104]

OK, someone who knows more about the law than I do, can you possibly answer a question...

Couldn't this be considered a strict liability case? I mean, no intent, no real negligence, just the fact that they know the risks of the diseases they aren't vaxxing against?

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by Petie1104

OK, someone who knows more about the law than I do, can you possibly answer a question...

Couldn't this be considered a strict liability case? I mean, no intent, no real negligence, just the fact that they know the risks of the diseases they aren't vaxxing against?

No, this is not a time strict liability should apply. It is not "inherently dangerous" to not vax your kid and the parents are not manufacturing a good that is defective.

I guess some people might argue it is inherently dangerous to not vax, but given that it is not legally required to vax, I would say that our government has not reached that conclusion, so strict liability would not apply.

And I still would want to know where the line is drawn for who is held responsible. Parents have a stronger obligation to protect their own children than the public at large. Failure to research or commit to a healthy lifestyle should be weighed heavier than merely catching the disease, IMHO.

[junipermuse]

Originally Posted by Otto

Knowingly spreading an infectious disease is separate from negligently doing so, mainly in that intentional torts open the door to punitive damages. But all of this already applies regardless of vax status.

To be negligent though wouldn't you have to reasonably suspect you were contagious. Is it enough to say you went to a country that had SARS and then returned and you spread the disease to others before knowing you were even sick? Or would you have to at least have some symptoms of illness, so knowing that you had traveled to a country with SARS you should reasonably suspect it could be SARS and so quarantine yourself? If the second is negligent, but not the first, then to me it seems you would have to do more than just not be vaxed to be seen as negligent in the case of WC or measles or any other VPD.

[ameliabedelia]

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.

I don't believe that choosing not to vax comes with any more responsibility than choosing to vax. If you are going to hold someone liable if they infect someone else with certain diseases, then it needs to be held whether that person is vaccinated or not. A fully vax'd child with pertussis has no more business being out in public than a non-vax'd child with pertussis. Vaccination status should really have nothing to do with it. A vax'd person with pertussis can still spread it to anyone else.
You could maybe say that the vax'd person is less likely to get the disease, but if they do, they still have a responsibility to stay home.

And, as far as vaccines that shed...I can't even tell you how many places I've been where someone says "oh, little Timmy had his shots today, he did so good" or whatever. People (as a general rule) certainly do NOT stay home after having vaccinations. In all my years of attending playgroups or field trips or library times or whatever, I have never, ever, ever heard someone say "oh, we can't go, since little Susie has her shots yesterday, she might be shedding virus". NO ONE says that or thinks that. NO ONE.

Around two years ago my girls got atypical chicken pox. The doctor says it was from a recently vaccinated person (we have no idea who) who was shedding virus and would only provide partial immunity that would wear off around puberty. Which means my kids have likely lost their chance to get full immunity from wild chicken pox yet (if they were to actually be exposed)...yet are only partially immune.

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia

I don't believe that choosing not to vax comes with any more responsibility than choosing to vax. If you are going to hold someone liable if they infect someone else with certain diseases, then it needs to be held whether that person is vaccinated or not. A fully vax'd child with pertussis has no more business being out in public than a non-vax'd child with pertussis. Vaccination status should really have nothing to do with it. A vax'd person with pertussis can still spread it to anyone else.
You could maybe say that the vax'd person is less likely to get the disease, but if they do, they still have a responsibility to stay home.

If you read further up in this thread I stated in a reply to you:

I believe the same standards should be held for those who were vaccinated and still got sick - if you or child is (even possibly) contagious - stay away from people who are uninformed about the risk of catching something from you.

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia

[I]

Around two years ago my girls got atypical chicken pox. The doctor says it was from a recently vaccinated person (we have no idea who) who was shedding virus and would only provide partial immunity that would wear off around puberty. Which means my kids have likely lost their chance to get full immunity from wild chicken pox yet (if they were to actually be exposed)...yet are only partially immune.

Do you have evidence for this?

There have only been 6 documented cases of Oka transmission to healthy individuals, and (I thought?) they all seroconverted.

[wemoon]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia

I don't believe that choosing not to vax comes with any more responsibility than choosing to vax. If you are going to hold someone liable if they infect someone else with certain diseases, then it needs to be held whether that person is vaccinated or not. A fully vax'd child with pertussis has no more business being out in public than a non-vax'd child with pertussis. Vaccination status should really have nothing to do with it. A vax'd person with pertussis can still spread it to anyone else.
You could maybe say that the vax'd person is less likely to get the disease, but if they do, they still have a responsibility to stay home.

And, as far as vaccines that shed...I can't even tell you how many places I've been where someone says "oh, little Timmy had his shots today, he did so good" or whatever. People (as a general rule) certainly do NOT stay home after having vaccinations. In all my years of attending playgroups or field trips or library times or whatever, I have never, ever, ever heard someone say "oh, we can't go, since little Susie has her shots yesterday, she might be shedding virus". NO ONE says that or thinks that. NO ONE.

Yes, all of this. What if my non-vaxed child got any disease from vaxed, but now sick, or recently vaxed child? Should the vaxer be liable? It can't just go one way, it would have to go both.

[wemoon]

I would love to comment on the HIV/AIDS discussion, but think I might become too angry. All I'll say right now is that each person is responsible for their own sexual health, and should not take anything for granted. Criminalizing a disease is just wrong.

[ameliabedelia]

Do you have evidence for this?

There have only been 6 documented cases of Oka transmission to healthy individuals, and (I thought?) they all seroconverted.

This is what our pediatrician told us. We didn't do any tests on my kids or anything, so we have no way of knowing for sure. He told us they had "atypical chicken pox" which is from the vaccine...and that he hadn't seen a case of wild chicken pox in 5 years.