Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated? - Page 2

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Otto 

This is pretty much the heart of the matter, although vaccine status would certainly be relevant in demonstrating negligence if one knew that oneself had been exposed. And, in the latter case, recklessness can be enough to establish liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which could open up the playing field.

IIED is not a low threshold however, to establish a prima facie case for IIED is very difficult, because the behavior of the person inflicting the distress has to be "extreme and outrageous" (high standard), and the plaintiff must actually suffer "severe emotional distress that is not trivial or transitory".  Recklessness can establish liability, but I highly doubt that IIED would come into play with a lawsuit between vaccinated and unvaccinated parties, particularly if it was negligently exposing, or recklessly exposing.

I've actually thought about this, and remember reading on MDC or another parenting board maybe, when a person got really angry that her children were uninvited to a party after going to a chicken pox party.  She said later in the thread that she would just keep it a secret next time - THAT would be the type of negligence or recklessness that would lead to a lawsuit for exposing others to illness, and really it would probably be an intentional tort rather than negligence or recklessness.  Thats the kind of thing that makes me nervous, and makes me want my child vaxed, b/c I don't need or want him to get all these vpd's on someone else's whim.

[frogeagle]

Wow, this is the first question in a long time that I do not have a immediate answer for, or a clear feeling about.  There are so many variables...which makes this a great discussion.  I do believe everyone has a personal duty or responsibility to make sure when yourself or a family member is sick, to make sure others are aware and precautions are made.  I think this goes for the entire human known disease spectrum.  As for the HIV debate, I do believe that most of the cases that are mentioned are mostly among the carriers that were intentionally infecting others. On the other hand I know people that have died from the common cold, whooping cough, and even a friend that died from her son receiving the MMR shot and she contracted MS. I was even recently informed from a doctor that the next vaccine shots my son receives, is to make sure that my sister, (who has 3 autoimmune disorders) stays clear of him for at least 30 days.  So, where does that put EVERYONE.  If you receive vaccines, you must be careful and if you don't, you are also putting others at risk. 

Personally I do vaccinate my son, but on my own chosen schedule.  I am the kind of person (that makes a lot of people mad) that believes that I should not tell others what religion they should practice, that they should have an abortion, what they should eat, how to raise their kids, or if vaccinating your child is a must.  BUT, do not tell me what to do either, especially the for profit government, whose only concern is money and not the people. 

So, I guess I have to first say is: #1.  I am tired of the " I am going to sue you" attitude.  Lawyers have become a house hold commodity and society has become a point your finger and blame others.  I have learned some things for sure, that life is never fair, crap happens, and some times people die.  #2  I believe that vaccinating vs not vaccinating comes down to personal choice and therefore no matter what you choose you are responsible for your choice.  Why, because either choice could hurt some one else, as true with all choices we make. 

And, after reading what I just wrote I realized that I still did not answer the question. 

[ilovemygirl]

I didn't have time to read the responses but here's my quick two cents on the issue. 

First of all this is completely ridiculous. How far down the line do we go. You want to sue someone who gave you measles? Well how about the person who gave it to her, or the person who gave it to that person, etc? Trying to hold someone accountable for spreading an airborne disease is ludicrous. We live, we breathe, we spread germs, it's kinda how it works, yk? 

People go out and send their kids out knowing they are sick with varying things every single day. No one can deny that. Period. Am I going to be compensated by the guy standing next to me in line that coughs on me knowing full well he has the flu that I catch? Is he now going to be forced to pay my bills for doctors, lost work, medicine, etc? Until that answer is an unequivocal yes, I don't see how you can hold someone liable for giving you a vaccine-available illness when they do the exact same thing. 

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.

Couldn't the same be said by any parent Whose child was potentially exposed to a VPD because another mom felt it okay to take their possibly infected (for example after attending a chicken pox party) child out in public because they weren't yet showing symptoms?

[ema-adama]

In my mind the parent who intentionally exposes a child to a virus in an attempt to gain immunity to said virus, *should* know what to expect with regards to the expected period of time that the child could be contagious. And act responsibly - not be in public.

I had this experience last year when my son was in a homeschooling group where a (vaccinated) child has CP. 3 lesions, but CP non the less. I sat down and worked it out whether I wanted my son to be exposed at that time as Pesach was coming up and it would have been a pity to miss the family celebration with a potentially contagious child. We had enough time, DS went to the meet up, and didn't develop any lesions/fever.

But I did take the time to consider the impact on our lives as I would not take a potentially infectious child into public.

I never take DS out in public when he has a fever, or has had a fever in the last 24 hours. If he is infectious with conjunctivitis etc - we stay home. People think I am a little odd for keeping him home when he is ill. However, I believe it is the responsible thing to do. I can, because I SAH. But yeah. it has happened that people tell me I'm being considerate and all, but it is not necessary to keep DS home.

Not all parents who decline vaccines are irresponsible. No doubt some are - but it is not an inherently irresponsible choice.

It comes back to parents/people intentionally spreading disease by going into public when they know they are or very likely could be infectious. And that happens all. the. time. Just not that often with measles in the USA.

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.

Couldn't the same be said by any parent Whose child was potentially exposed to a VPD because another mom felt it okay to take their possibly infected (for example after attending a chicken pox party) child out in public because they weren't yet showing symptoms?

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.

Couldn't the same be said by any parent Whose child was potentially exposed to a VPD because another mom felt it okay to take their possibly infected (for example after attending a chicken pox party) child out in public because they weren't yet showing symptoms?

Not really - every living thing takes health risks every day.  Everyone is always "possibly" infected with something.

[MsFortune]

We have the right to sue anyone we want, any time we want.  Whether we would win or not is a different matter.

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Not really - every living thing takes health risks every day.  Everyone is always "possibly" infected with something.

There is a big difference between taking your child out in public that you knowingly exposed to a VPD disease and the normal risk of everyday exposure.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Not really - every living thing takes health risks every day.  Everyone is always "possibly" infected with something.

There is a big difference between taking your child out in public that you knowingly exposed to a VPD disease and the normal risk of everyday exposure.

Why does it make a difference if it's a VPD?  My son was exposed to illnesses like H1N1, Coxsackie, and other unnamed viruses while in preschool.  His preschool was at a daycare, so if I kept him quarantined every time he was "exposed" to something, he never would have left the house.

I'm not saying that if I went to a pox party, that I would bring my kids to a playground, but I wonder why it's so different for a VPD than any other illness?

[PreggieUBA2C]

I consider it my responsibility to stay home if me or my dc are not constitutionally strong enough to withstand encounters with wild viruses and ubiquitous bacteria. I would consider it my fault, or at least my responsibility, if my dc came home with an infection. I expect to encounter pathogens. I cannot imagine the case that a parent whose immunity-building regimen is not perfect (obviously it isn't if his/her child is ill) could launch against other people who knowingly or unknowingly walk around sick. My dp couldn't just not go to his job for two weeks while our family runs a course of influenza, for instance, to protect others. Feeding our family is of greater value to us than the pretense of protecting others from exposure to viruses. If someone deliberately gobbed saliva into my child's mouth in order to infect him/her, that would be assault; but just breathing? Touching common things?

Those three fingers pointing back form a majority consensus, imo.

Entering a public space is at the risk of the individual entering it. If you don't want the risk, don't take it. There are myriad ways to live.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I'm not saying that if I went to a pox party, that I would bring my kids to a playground, but I wonder why it's so different for a VPD than any other illness?

It's not different; one of the four prongs of negligence is whether there was a duty, here to warn others or take reasonable precautions to avoid exposing them.

[Arduinna]

What in the world would the unvaxed have to sue for? They are protected from VPDs right?

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Why does it make a difference if it's a VPD?  My son was exposed to illnesses like H1N1, Coxsackie, and other unnamed viruses while in preschool.  His preschool was at a daycare, so if I kept him quarantined every time he was "exposed" to something, he never would have left the house.

I'm not saying that if I went to a pox party, that I would bring my kids to a playground, but I wonder why it's so different for a VPD than any other illness?

I worded it that way because this thread is about vaccines.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Why does it make a difference if it's a VPD?  My son was exposed to illnesses like H1N1, Coxsackie, and other unnamed viruses while in preschool.  His preschool was at a daycare, so if I kept him quarantined every time he was "exposed" to something, he never would have left the house.

I'm not saying that if I went to a pox party, that I would bring my kids to a playground, but I wonder why it's so different for a VPD than any other illness?

I worded it that way because this thread is about vaccines.

I understand that.  But I honestly want to know why in people's minds it's different.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Otto 

It's not different; one of the four prongs of negligence is whether there was a duty, here to warn others or take reasonable precautions to avoid exposing them.

You cannot demonstrate that a person's vaccination status would preclude them from spreading disease. There is profound discrimination occurring with regard to vaccination status, and people that promote this discrimination are behaving unlawfully, whether they knowingly do so or not.  This is a slippery slope, and the skeptical community is well aware that their vehement counterparts are pretty well represented legally.  

Since vaccine makers are publicly traded corporations that are producing products bought with taxpayer money (how many billions of wasted dollars on H1N1?) by governments, then subsequently mandated for universal use upon those same taxpayers... and are now afforded immunity from design defects and perpetually exempt from civil procedures in litigation...this is exactly the kind of courtroom that this kind of lawsuit needs to occur, and I'd personally welcome it, because in the hands of the right counsel this stupid discussion would finally be settled.

EVERYONE is capable of spreading disease regardless of vaccination status.  

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Otto 

It's not different; one of the four prongs of negligence is whether there was a duty, here to warn others or take reasonable precautions to avoid exposing them.

But there is no duty to warn those of whom you have no special relationship with.  Failure to warn is considered an "omission" (generally, there can only be liability when the defendant has taken an affirmative action - a failure to warn is not an affirmative action) in tort law, so there is only a duty to warn when there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.  A few examples of a special relationship are parent/child, contracted for duties (ie, lifeguards, EMTs), statutory duties, husband/wife, etc.  No one has a duty to warn a stranger in the supermarket, a stranger on the playground, or even a friend really - b/c that legal special relationship isn't there.

ETA - on the other hand, it would be possible to argue that it wasn't an omission, and was rather a voluntary act that negligenty placed others at risk of exposure.  It would be *very* difficult to prove though.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by an_domhan 

You cannot demonstrate that a person's vaccination status would preclude them from spreading disease.

I didn't suggest that one could. The point was that there is no per se "duty to vaccinate" in negligence.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Otto 

I didn't suggest that one could. The point was that there is no per se "duty to vaccinate" in negligence.

The duty element in Negligence is "to act as a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances" towards foreseeable plaintiffs.  If vaxing is required by law, and a person doesn't have an exemption there could be an argument for "negligence per se" to establish the duty element, but then it would depend on the statutory language and how it had been interpreted.

[rush2ady]

It's illegal in many states to sell raw milk.  Homeopathy, which has strong roots in our American history, was almost driven to extinction in the country by the AMA.  I've heard of parents being forced by court action to allow chemo and radiation therapy to their child with cancer, when those parents were pursuing alternative treatments.  It's terribly difficult to get insurance coverage for therapies other than the standard "slice them up and drug them" treatments. 

Where does this government and legal control over our lives and our health decisions end?  What happened to the respect and protection of our right to become educated and make our own decisions? 

[PreggieUBA2C]

Originally Posted by rush2ady 

It's illegal in many states to sell raw milk.  Homeopathy, which has strong roots in our American history, was almost driven to extinction in the country by the AMA.  I've heard of parents being forced by court action to allow chemo and radiation therapy to their child with cancer, when those parents were pursuing alternative treatments.  It's terribly difficult to get insurance coverage for therapies other than the standard "slice them up and drug them" treatments. 

Where does this government and legal control over our lives and our health decisions end?  What happened to the respect and protection of our right to become educated and make our own decisions? 

You live in the United States of America. As far as I understand, it's up to you, and the rest of the people living there, how long and in what manner you will allow this to continue.