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 18

post #341 of 360

Lol, what is this?

post #342 of 360



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noellecc3 View Post

People sue others over a lot more crazier claims than that!   



 So, doesn't make it right.

post #343 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noellecc3 View Post

People sue others over a lot more crazier claims than that!   


I agree, it is crazy.  And there are crazier things.  I just don't see how it being crazy makes it ok.  I also don't see how people with a bent for vengeance are evidence that suing is a sound decision.  Hence why we (ideally) have juries with people who aren't emotionally connected to a case, because emotional reactions can cause people to act in irrational, "crazy" ways; they don't tend to make sound decisions.  Basically, "I've been messed up, so now I'm gonna mess YOU up."  This is not what I care to model to my children, as reactions like this in macro assert themselves in our children's lives in micro, and "justice" becomes confused with "vengeance" and that is how wars are started - micro ones, and macro ones.  Time to fashion a new thought pattern in our kids, and perhaps a better world, doncha reckon?

 

 

 

Quote:
 
They found a special gene in populations that tend to live to 100 or more (the japanese, Jewish, Italians etc).   It's called FOXO gene, and the gene probably plays more of a role in the individual's long life than diet or anything else.

 

The gene is not found in all centenarians.  Just some of the few they studied. There is also much more needed to be researched in genetics regarding longevity.  The length of telomeres in chromosomes for instance are also indicative of length of life and they are working on what causes them to be shortened more slowly.  None of these things tell us very much at this stage.  It also says nothing of those centenarians who don't have such genetic advantage - if there proves to be such advantage.  What most people want to know is how to raise their kids (and themselves) in ways that most promote health and therefore healthy longevity.  Those centenarians without an advantage have the most to teach.  

post #344 of 360

I don't understand the logic behind the argument, if the vaccinated are protected from disease why are they afraid of catching the diseases they are supposidly protected from from the unvaccinated? They can't have it both ways they either are protected or they are not.And if you can sue someone for knowingly spreading disease then the entire medical community would be liable.

post #345 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by minnowmomma View Post

I don't understand the logic behind the argument, if the vaccinated are protected from disease why are they afraid of catching the diseases they are supposidly protected from from the unvaccinated? They can't have it both ways they either are protected or they are not.And if you can sue someone for knowingly spreading disease then the entire medical community would be liable.


Yes.  This.  But apparently if you say this enough (people who are vaxed shouldn't be afraid because they're supposedly protected) then it seems the response is that it isn't about an individual child.  Vaccination is about statistics... herd immunity.  It isn't that a parent is vaxing to protect her own child directly, but to add to the totality that are vaxed, and therefore the community will be protected... cycling that protection back to her own child in the herd effect.  

 

Initially, what is sold to parents is the idea that their child is directly protected, and that the vaxed are protecting the unvaxed with herd immunity... yet after they're vaccinated, the parent defends that they aren't all that protected if an outbreak occurs after all, so it is up to the unvaxed to therefore get vaxed to protect the vaxed.  

 

The logic leave me cold.

 

post #346 of 360

It is not too far fetched to sue someone from knowingly spreading disease.  I believe people have sued for contracting HIV from someone that knew they had it. 

post #347 of 360



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by laharned View Post

It is not too far fetched to sue someone from knowingly spreading disease.  I believe people have sued for contracting HIV from someone that knew they had it. 



 I don't believe that anyone here is referring to KNOWINGLY and  PURPOSELY spreading disease. this was addressed earlier in the thread.

post #348 of 360

my answer to this question is:

 

if vaccinated were allowed to sue unvaccinated for 'infecting them' (even though vaccinated parties also carry diseases)

 

then unvaccinated should be allowed to sue vaccinated for the shedding of their vaccines on to the unvaccinated.

post #349 of 360

So, as a delayed vaccinating mother, I believe everyone has a right to choose whether or not their children receive vaccinations.  Like others have stated, the real issue is what should happen when people knowingly expose others to a disease that their child has contracted, vaccinated or not?

 

I'm not talking about chicken pox parties.  I frequent another parenting forum and a mother was asking what she should do (vax, antibiotics, etc.) with her two children under the age of two that had contracted pertussis and were unvaxed.  Everyone's overwhelming response was what's the point in vaxing, and what's the point in the antibiotics as they are only effective within a short timeframe which had already passed.

 

The advice she didn't take that made my blood boil was keeping her children quarantined until they were no longer contagious.  She knowingly took them to a birthday party and other public places, knowing they were contagious. 

 

I have no problem with people who don't vaccinate; I haven't done all of the vaccinations myself.  I have a problem with people that knowingly expose others to diseases without their consent.  With rising heathcare costs, I should have the right to know that you're bringing your contagious child to a birthday party and choose not to come, especially when I'm the one that has to pay the extra healthcare costs should my child contract the disease, vaccinated or not.

 

The article in OP was very silly though :)

post #350 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairsailing188 View Post

  I have a problem with people that knowingly expose others to diseases without their consent. 


 

You know, I do agree with this. This applies to both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

 

Also, I do not approve of somebody with an illness using the illness as a weapon. (Like knowingly infecting somebody with AIDS, for revenge. Or, when the  Native Americans were purposely infected with smallpox blankets.) If a person had an illness, and tried to infect somebody on purpose......intent to cause harm where a disease is the weapon.....I can see a lawsuit over that.

post #351 of 360

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairsailing188 View Post

 

The advice she didn't take that made my blood boil was keeping her children quarantined until they were no longer contagious.  She knowingly took them to a birthday party and other public places, knowing they were contagious. 

 

 

I agree.  I'm a nonvaxer myself but I don't understand why people would do this, including those who vaccinate as well (because after all, those who are vaccinated get diseases too, so there is equal concern). I've never known anyone personally who would do this, but the thought that there are people out there that would is just scary.  In addition to exposing others to the illness, why aren't they keeping their kids home so they can get well rather than dragging them all over the place. I don't get it.

post #352 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post




 

You know, I do agree with this. This applies to both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

 

Also, I do not approve of somebody with an illness using the illness as a weapon. (Like knowingly infecting somebody with AIDS, for revenge. Or, when the  Native Americans were purposely infected with smallpox blankets.) If a person had an illness, and tried to infect somebody on purpose......intent to cause harm where a disease is the weapon.....I can see a lawsuit over that.

I could see a lawsuit on those kinds of things too.  

 

The problem I have with the title of this thread is the wording... as though the vaxed can't also be sued, and the use of the word "right".  I want the right to sue, I want all my rights, but I probably would not exercise my right to sue.  

 

I also wonder if people think there is a difference between getting a disease from a vaccinated person and an unvaxed one.  Are the vaxed less liable?  I think in many people's minds, they are.  At a guess, a sense of innocence is conferred on the vaxed, and a sense of recklessness on the unvaxed.  People will knee jerk react in anger if a person gets measles from an unvaccinated person, but in a vaxed person, the liability immediately shifts to the vaccine manufacturers.  Regardless of how irresponsibly the infected vaxed person behaved.

post #353 of 360

jaw.gif She had kids at a birthday party with pertussis?!?! OMFG. That is so irresponsible it's ridiculous.

post #354 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairsailing188 View Post

 

I'm not talking about chicken pox parties.  I frequent another parenting forum and a mother was asking what she should do (vax, antibiotics, etc.) with her two children under the age of two that had contracted pertussis and were unvaxed.  Everyone's overwhelming response was what's the point in vaxing, and what's the point in the antibiotics as they are only effective within a short timeframe which had already passed.

 

The advice she didn't take that made my blood boil was keeping her children quarantined until they were no longer contagious.  She knowingly took them to a birthday party and other public places, knowing they were contagious. 


Perhaps if she'd gotten her advice from people who had accurate information to give her or did some research herself she would have been in a better place to make an informed decision. The two things I bolded contradict each other. Either her kids were still contagious and could have recieved antibiotics to reduce the length of time they were contagious to 5 days or they were not contagious and therefore antibiotics were not going to help but they were no risk to other children.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post

jaw.gif She had kids at a birthday party with pertussis?!?! OMFG. That is so irresponsible it's ridiculous.



Again to the bolded and my response. I agree taking kids with pertussis to a party is irresponsible but how was she sure it was pertussis? If it were culture positive (the only sure way to diagnose it although most diagnosis are made on clinical symptoms alone and then treated) I am shocked she would not have been told the benefits of antibiotic therapy since in the medical view it is the only way to go. If she did indeed have an accurate pertussis diagnosis and was in the first window of the illness when it is contagious then yes, I agree it's irresponsible.

 

However I am over the whole "pertussis will kill us all". I had SIX different doctors misdiagnose pertussis last fall. And it was because of my persistance we finally got a diagnosis. And this was several cases we are talking about in the same family. You bet your bananas I took my kids around other kids when they had pertussis because I was told it was safe to do so. Once we had a diagnosis the ones who were old enough for playdates were no long contagious and so we went along with other kids even though they sounded terrible.

 

My experience with pertussis has shown me two things very clearly... 1. It is not even close to as scary a disease as it's presented in some commercials and such because most cases are undiagnosed. 2. I never ever want to go through it again and if I could prevent it for me and my kids 100% I would in a heartbeat.

 

In response to the OP I would say that there are way too many factors to make such a thing (suing) a possible thing to entertain.

post #355 of 360

If the vaccines work, then there isn't a risk for people who have received them, so the whole premise is completely nonsensical.  There is no point to suing a sick person for the failure of your vaccine, you should be suing the vaccine producer.

post #356 of 360
First of all: no.

Second of all, pp, please lean how vaccines work. They are not a 100% effective shot of miracle pixie dust.
post #357 of 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairsailing188 View Post


 

The advice she didn't take that made my blood boil was keeping her children quarantined until they were no longer contagious.  She knowingly took them to a birthday party and other public places, knowing they were contagious. 

 

My head just spun off my body when I read that. What a bleep word.

 

 

Cuss.gifbanghead.gifhopmad.gifhopmad.gifhopmad.gifhopmad.gifhopmad.gif

post #358 of 360
Mine too. FYI this is a really old thread! How did it come back?
post #359 of 360

How is my unvaccinated child a threat to your VACCINATED one? Can't have it both ways. Vaccines either work or they don't. 

post #360 of 360
Vaccines work, but they don't provide 100% immunity. No one ever claimed they did. There are also people who CAN'T be vaccinated who have to rely on herd immunity for protection.
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?