or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated? - Page 8

post #141 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AboutPediatrics View Post

 

The parents of the first case knew he was sick, which is why he went to his pediatrician. They likely didn't know it was measles, but maybe they should have since they made the decision to not vax and should have known he would be more susceptible to infections like measles.

 

The reasons we likely don't see any lawsuits is you likely have to prove that a person knowingly spread the illness. And the vaccine exemptions in many states probably provide some cover.

 


I'm not certain how a parent would be expected to diagnose measles as the cause of illness as opposed to any other viral exanthem. I wonder if there might be liability on the part of the pediatrician for having the child come into the office/waiting area with other children. If the child had not been diagnosed with measles then it's not likely the parent could have knowingly spread it.
 

 

post #142 of 360

Well we don't vax but I have a huge list of all the symptoms and signs of every VPD they vax for, so if DD does get sick I can say "hmmm well her eyes were red, and she has white spots in her mouth, a fever, and a cough, she may have measles so we should take precautions as if she does have them." 

 

Considering "most Dr's don't even know how to diagnose VPD's anymore" which is ridiculous IMO if I bring it up at least they would have to look into it. If I call and say "I suspect it's x b/c she has x,y,z" then I would suspect the Dr would want to take precautions and if he said it wasn't necessary I would insist.

 

post #143 of 360
Thread Starter 

I found this today and thought of this thread: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/

 

 

Quote:
Tort law, though perhaps not as effective a remedy as outright state government intervention, has the potential to be the best method of preventing religious and philosophical exemption abuse and compensating victims of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks that has a realistic chance of being implemented.

 

 

It's interesting that they blame exemption laws on "social conservatives."  Last I checked, non-vaxing and D/S-vaxing MDC members are all over the map with their politics and religion...

 

If it's your right and you exercise it, exactly how are you "abusing" a religious or philosophical exemption?

post #144 of 360

I loved the "most parents are too lazy to vaccinate" line for people who exempt their children from the vax for school. Seems to me the easier thing would be to just get the vax done on schedule at the well visits...

post #145 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post

I loved the "most parents are too lazy to vaccinate" line for people who exempt their children from the vax for school. Seems to me the easier thing would be to just get the vax done on schedule at the well visits...



Not everyone in this country has access to medical care, so its not so "Easy" to get vaxed if you don't have a ped, or don't have the resources to do well visits.

post #146 of 360

Slippery Slope.  And discriminatory beyond comprehension.  The fact will always remain, that there is no possible way to know who will and will not resist disease regardless of whether a vaccine is available, and regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.  When you hear things like, "and it could have all been prevented by the vaccine" like we all hear ad nauseum - that is a false dichotomy, and a logical fallacy that has no basis in fact, only opinion.  

 

If we are going to open the door for lawsuits over spreading disease, then it will open for ALL diseases and infectious states, many of which vaccines are not available.  How many Retroviruses out there?  Adenoviruses?  Enteroviruses?  There have been many position papers written on the potential for tort action with respect to vaccine refusal... and they are all based on the premise that had the infectious person vaccinated, then the victim wouldn't have gotten sick by coming into contact with them.  Prove it - not with antibodies either since memory cells cannot generally be measured except during challenge and antibodies are but a fraction of total host immune response.  Direct infection studies in animals measure only symptoms [with some exceptions] and do not account for subclinical states among the vaccinated.  No confounders there.

 

I wish the infectee the best of luck in that pursuit, because it will fall flat on its face.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

I found this today and thought of this thread: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/

 

 

 

 

It's interesting that they blame exemption laws on "social conservatives."  Last I checked, non-vaxing and D/S-vaxing MDC members are all over the map with their politics and religion...

 

If it's your right and you exercise it, exactly how are you "abusing" a religious or philosophical exemption?



 

post #147 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post





Not everyone in this country has access to medical care, so its not so "Easy" to get vaxed if you don't have a ped, or don't have the resources to do well visits.


Well if you have no access to medical care it still wouldn't be b/c you were lazy. From what I understand, at least where I live, if you don't bring your baby to well visits it is medical neglect and you can have your children taken away...

 

I don't really understand why you challenged what I said. All I was saying was that a reason for not vaxing being that the parents are lazy is bogus.

 

post #148 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post


 From what I understand, at least where I live, if you don't bring your baby to well visits it is medical neglect and you can have your children taken away...

 



This is scary. 

post #149 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post




Well if you have no access to medical care it still wouldn't be b/c you were lazy. From what I understand, at least where I live, if you don't bring your baby to well visits it is medical neglect and you can have your children taken away...

 

I don't really understand why you challenged what I said. All I was saying was that a reason for not vaxing being that the parents are lazy is bogus.

 



B/c you said that the "easy" thing to do would just be to get the vaxes at the well baby visits.  That might be true, but its not easy to have well baby visits if you have to pay out of pocket, and if you don't have insurance you probably can't afford to pay for well baby visits.

 

And I find it really hard to believe that not going to well child visits would be medical neglect.  I'm pretty sure medical neglect is when people do things like ignore GLARING signs of MAJOR problems and refuse to seek medical treatment for their children.  If a child is perfectly healthy there isn't any medical neglect going on.

post #150 of 360

What I was trying to say was that if a parent were "just being lazy" according to that website, then why would they go through all the trouble to get exempt form vaccinating since it is a PIA, or in other words it would be easier to just vax than to not.

 

I don't think it is medical neglect not to go to well visits, but from what I understand it is considered medical neglect. IDK that's what I was told.

 

Just forget it...

post #151 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post

What I was trying to say was that if a parent were "just being lazy" according to that website, then why would they go through all the trouble to get exempt form vaccinating since it is a PIA, or in other words it would be easier to just vax than to not.

 

I don't think it is medical neglect not to go to well visits, but from what I understand it is considered medical neglect. IDK that's what I was told.

 

Just forget it...

 

It is true that choosing to not bring your infant in for "well-baby" visits (you know, to not bring your healthy infant/child into an office filled with infectious disease...) would be retrospectively held against you in a court IF something did happen to your child. For instance, if one of my dc had an accident (we live on a farm, and we do a lot of training and talking about the realities of tractors and livestock and other potential dangers in real time and as part of our regular discussions and reminders) and required medical assistance, and then died, or came close, and we were suspect for not taking proper precautions in the opinion of the hcp's, the fact that we do not do "well-child" visits with a board certified doctor would be stacked on top of the current crisis, against us.

 

Where we live, NDs are partially funded (read: accepted professionals- our family pays fully out of pocket), so we take our dc to see our trusted ND to protect ourselves from the charge of neglect from cps. I do know that this is not just paranoid speculation. My dp worked in a cooperative way in his job with cps for 8 years, until just last week, so this is current, and reflective of at least the three regions of Canada that he's worked in, one of which is Ontario, which has a proportionately large population relative to other provinces/territories. No doubt there are lots of people who will say that charges of medical neglect based exclusively on not taking a child for "well-child" appointments doesn't really happen here, but it does. My dp's former job relied, in part, explicitly upon just such a function of gov't and its cps agents.
 

 

post #152 of 360


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post

What I was trying to say was that if a parent were "just being lazy" according to that website, then why would they go through all the trouble to get exempt form vaccinating since it is a PIA, or in other words it would be easier to just vax than to not.

 

I don't think it is medical neglect not to go to well visits, but from what I understand it is considered medical neglect. IDK that's what I was told.

 

Just forget it...

I get what your saying, sosurreal.

Calling non-vaxers lazy implies that the only reason they don't vax is because they just can't be bothered to take their children to the doctor, and are perhaps too ignorant to understand the science behind vaccines.
 

 

post #153 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post



 

It is true that choosing to not bring your infant in for "well-baby" visits (you know, to not bring your healthy infant/child into an office filled with infectious disease...) would be retrospectively held against you in a court IF something did happen to your child. For instance, if one of my dc had an accident (we live on a farm, and we do a lot of training and talking about the realities of tractors and livestock and other potential dangers in real time and as part of our regular discussions and reminders) and required medical assistance, and then died, or came close, and we were suspect for not taking proper precautions in the opinion of the hcp's, the fact that we do not do "well-child" visits with a board certified doctor would be stacked on top of the current crisis, against us.

 

Where we live, NDs are partially funded (read: accepted professionals- our family pays fully out of pocket), so we take our dc to see our trusted ND to protect ourselves from the charge of neglect from cps. I do know that this is not just paranoid speculation. My dp worked in a cooperative way in his job with cps for 8 years, until just last week, so this is current, and reflective of at least the three regions of Canada that he's worked in, one of which is Ontario, which has a proportionately large population relative to other provinces/territories. No doubt there are lots of people who will say that charges of medical neglect based exclusively on not taking a child for "well-child" appointments doesn't really happen here, but it does. My dp's former job relied, in part, explicitly upon just such a function of gov't and its cps agents.
 

 


It's hard to believe that CPS agents in Canada are actively seeking out "neglectful" parents solely on the basis of attending well-baby checks (if I understand you correctly).  It would seem that there would have to be extreme mitigating circumstances. I do not attend well-baby checks, we delay vax, CLW and co-sleep and I have no paranoia that government is about to take my kids away. Especially considering my above practices were discovered during an ER visit with my 4 yr old ds in Alberta last year with no repercussions whatsoever.  

 

post #154 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandelionkid View Post

It's hard to believe that CPS agents in Canada are actively seeking out "neglectful" parents solely on the basis of attending well-baby checks (if I understand you correctly).  It would seem that there would have to be extreme mitigating circumstances. I do not attend well-baby checks, we delay vax, CLW and co-sleep and I have no paranoia that government is about to take my kids away. Especially considering my above practices were discovered during an ER visit with my 4 yr old ds in Alberta last year with no repercussions whatsoever.  

 


I wrote that in the event of a serious medical issue, coupled with a suspicious MD, that having not taken a child for "well-child" appointments, previously, would secondarily be added to a first charge, as medical neglect. I did not write, assert, or imply that cps actively seeks out anyone. I gave a hypothetical scenario to illustrate both my assertion and its context. My dc were not taken away even when we were reprimanded for refusing a tetanus shot for our ds, and it was clear that we were not doing "well-child" visits. My point was that if we were considered by the hcp's during that incident to be incompetent and not capable of caring for our dc, the "lack" of medical industry compliance on our part would be held against us as additional fodder for removing our dc. I am not personally concerned because I know my stuff and do not have white-coat syndrome, at all.

 

Sosurreal wasn't sure if what she'd been told about this was correct, so having experience with this in three regions of Canada, I shared that it is indeed correct information in at least the regions I've lived in for the past eight years. I actually only meant what I wrote- nothing more.

 

post #155 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post




I wrote that in the event of a serious medical issue, coupled with a suspicious MD, that having not taken a child for "well-child" appointments, previously, would secondarily be added to a first charge, as medical neglect. I did not write, assert, or imply that cps actively seeks out anyone. I gave a hypothetical scenario to illustrate both my assertion and its context. My dc were not taken away even when we were reprimanded for refusing a tetanus shot for our ds, and it was clear that we were not doing "well-child" visits. My point was that if we were considered by the hcp's during that incident to be incompetent and not capable of caring for our dc, the "lack" of medical industry compliance on our part would be held against us as additional fodder for removing our dc. I am not personally concerned because I know my stuff and do not have white-coat syndrome, at all.

 

Sosurreal wasn't sure if what she'd been told about this was correct, so having experience with this in three regions of Canada, I shared that it is indeed correct information in at least the regions I've lived in for the past eight years. I actually only meant what I wrote- nothing more.

 


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the key part to what you have written is "considered by the hcp's during that incident to be incompetent and not capable of caring for our dc".  This could take many forms, well baby visits or not.  I can see the not doing WBV's coming into play if there were other factors involved, and not just a sick kid whose parents have sought out prompt medical treatment even though they do not participate in well baby checks.  Am I interpreting your post correctly?

post #156 of 360

I am not sure why anyone is confused.....

 

If a CPS services case is brought against you for any reason, and it becomes known you have avoided WBV, that could become part of their evidence against you......

 

In general it takes a lot to remove kids, kids are not going to be removed on the sole basis of a lack of well baby visits.

 

Assuming vaxxes are freely and readily available in your area, I think it is highly unlikely a parent is going to skip all of them due to laziness.  Indeed if a parent skips them due to cost it isn't laziness is it?  It is lack of resources and prioritising of ones money.  Food trumps vaccines.

 

I have, in my life, met a few parents who could not ( for various reasons - one was alcoholism and one was mental issues) get their kids to school or take them to the doctors when they needed, but these parents had serious issues in many ways - and were neglectful to the point where CPS was involved.  

 

It is much easier to vax your child - you do not have to put up with doctors lecturing you, worry about declaring your vax status at hospitals, wonder how you are going to get your kid into daycare and school, etc.  

 

To recap (because I am long winded), people do not vax because they do not believe in it, or because they do not have the resources to get the vax (rare, I hope).  They do not skip vaxxing  due to laziness - if there is a pattern of skipping the vaxes they believe in and  have the resources to get, there is probably something else going on.

 

post #157 of 360

You can't sue the pharmaceutical companies for severe reactions to vaccines, so why should individuals who chose to vaccinate be able to sue those who chose not to.  I think this is a horrible argument.  I didn't even read the article nor do I want to.  Those vaccinated are carrying live viruses and are able to shed those to the unvaccinated so it goes both ways.  If those children/people are vaccinated, and they believe 100% that the vaccines are safe, then there really is no argument to discuss, is there?

post #158 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

To recap (because I am long winded), people do not vax because they do not believe in it, or because they do not have the resources to get the vax (rare, I hope).  They do not skip vaxxing  due to laziness - if there is a pattern of skipping the vaxes they believe in and  have the resources to get, there is probably something else going on.

 


Probably rare in Canada where health care is far superior to the US (as far as access goes), but in the US its really not so rare.

 

post #159 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy F View Post

You can't sue the pharmaceutical companies for severe reactions to vaccines, so why should individuals who chose to vaccinate be able to sue those who chose not to.  I think this is a horrible argument.  I didn't even read the article nor do I want to.  Those vaccinated are carrying live viruses and are able to shed those to the unvaccinated so it goes both ways.  If those children/people are vaccinated, and they believe 100% that the vaccines are safe, then there really is no argument to discuss, is there?


I really get irritated that people on this board who choose not to vax are under the impression that all of us who DO vax think that vaxes are 100% safe and 100% effective - thats NOT true.  We have done the reasearch that you have, and come to the opposite conclusion.  That may not be true of everyone who vaxes, but it is true of at least some of us.

 

post #160 of 360



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

To recap (because I am long winded), people do not vax because they do not believe in it, or because they do not have the resources to get the vax (rare, I hope).  They do not skip vaxxing  due to laziness - if there is a pattern of skipping the vaxes they believe in and  have the resources to get, there is probably something else going on.

 



my dd was unvaxxed for over two years because we lived far from town and it was a big trip to make in just for vaccines. i was also taking my time about doing it, because i was researching, but there were some i was sure about that i didn't get because, well, i was lazy. redface.gif now that we've moved to town, she has started both her dtap and mmr series. and i'm still rather lazy about it because she should have already gone in for her second set.

 

i can't be the only busy person whose child isn't up to date. though to be fair, we will not be doing everything and i did plan to delay.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated?