or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences

post #1 of 412
Thread Starter 

Saw this article today on Reddit.  

 

He says "If your kid gets the measles, and remember public health officials are getting very very good at tracing outbreaks to their source, and makes my kid sick (can happen since vaccine is not 100 percent effective), my newborn baby die (newborns can’t benefit from vaccines) or my wife miscarry (fetuses are at especially high risk), then shouldn’t I be able to sue you for the harm you have done?"

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/health/bioethicist-says-parents-who-don-t-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences-13929.html

 

What does everyone think about this? 

post #2 of 412

No.

 

And there is no figuring out the source.  Contagious diseases do not materialize out of nowhere very often.  If I give you the measles, I got it from somewhere, and they got it from somewhere, and so forth.  Gonna sue everybody down the line?  Are you only going to sue the unvaxxed?  What about if a vaxxed person had measles and went out in public, giving it to numerous people?  What if the person who got measles turns out to be Vit. A deficient?  Where does it end?


Edited by kathymuggle - 6/3/13 at 10:49am
post #3 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

No.

And there is no figuring out the source.  contagious diseases do not materialize out of nowhere very often.  If I give you the measles, I got it from somewhere, and they got it from somewhere, and so forth.  Gonna sue everybody down the line?  Are you only going to sue the unvaxxed?  What about if a vaxxed person had measles and went out in public, giving it to numerous people?  What if the child who person who got measles turns out to be Vit. A deficient?  Where does it end?

Yeah, that guy has watched too many movies. Disease just doesn't materialize out of nowhere.
post #4 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

Yeah, that guy has watched too many movies. Disease just doesn't materialize out of nowhere.

This is was jumped out at me, too!
post #5 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Saw this article today on Reddit.  

 

He says "If your kid gets the measles, and remember public health officials are getting very very good at tracing outbreaks to their source, and makes my kid sick (can happen since vaccine is not 100 percent effective), my newborn baby die (newborns can’t benefit from vaccines) or my wife miscarry (fetuses are at especially high risk), then shouldn’t I be able to sue you for the harm you have done?"

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/health/bioethicist-says-parents-who-don-t-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences-13929.html

 

What does everyone think about this? 


Since we're talking hypothetically, why not sue the vaccine manufacturers when vaccinated people get measles due to vaccine-failure, or when women miscarry due to not having an immunity to measles, or when newborns are denied the maternal antibodies because their mothers never had a chance to develop the right type of immunity, etc.... it makes just as much sense. 

 

The bottom line is that the efficacy of measles vaccine was grossly inflated for a long time, but many people are reluctant to admit that, and would rather find a scapegoat than admit that the eradication plans were a bit unrealistic.

post #6 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Since we're talking hypothetically, why not sue the vaccine manufacturers when vaccinated people get measles due to vaccine-failure, or when women miscarry due to not having an immunity to measles, or when newborns are denied the maternal antibodies because their mothers never had a chance to develop the right type of immunity, etc.... it makes just as much sense. 

The bottom line is that the efficacy of measles vaccine was grossly inflated for a long time, but many people are reluctant to admit that, and would rather find a scapegoat than admit that the eradication plans were a bit unrealistic.

Yes, and to start, perhaps we could also develop a system in which parents of children, unavoidably, predictably, injured or killed by vaccines could actually expect compensation for their losses. Wait, that will never happen in the United States of Corporate America.
post #7 of 412

im torn with the vaccinations. this is my third baby.. the first two were vacs on schedule.. no bad side effects.. however my current sig other has never been vaccinated nor has seen a doctor more than one time when he was involved in a car accident.. he is beautiful and healthy and strong.. he doesnt believe in the vacs ( for good reason id say) but he did allow me to choose what kind of prenatal care i thought was best for me.. he has said he doesnt want the baby vaccinated until he reads EVERYTHING about them and makes an educated decision. he never went to school formally and seems to absorb and learn better by reading.. he is the smartest man i know.. i think its a very personal decision and that doctors and the government should back off about it.. thats the problem i think.. they have too much authority to tell you what to do and how to do the raising of your children...

post #8 of 412

Couldn't be much of a bioethicist if he couldn't see the holes in his argument. eyesroll.gif

post #9 of 412

If his kid gets measles it is because the vax didn't work for his kid, in which case his kid is just as much at risk of spreading the disease to mine than the other way around. So, sure if I can sue you when your vaxxed kid gives mine a disease, go ahead. eyesroll.gif

post #10 of 412

I think it's just about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. 

post #11 of 412

That would be no different than suing for passing around the flu at work.  Someone shows up get you sick then you lose a few days or weeks of work depending on your health and you sue them for loss time. 

 

 

People are weird. 

post #12 of 412

Where will he draw the line?  Will he sue people with MEDICAL exemptions from vaccination?  Does he expect them to take a vaccine for his benefit if they already know they have a high risk of serious reaction? Or is he only going to sue the people who looked at the risks and decided for themselves--rightly or wrongly--that they prefer the risk of disease over the risk of vaccine reaction?  Who's he gonna sue if the disease is traced to someone who is fully vaxxed, who spread the disease and didn't know it, because they thought--wrongly--that the vaccine would not only protect them, but prevent them from spreading germs?

 

What kind of ethics does he believe in, if he thinks it's good to sue someone for breathing germs in your general direction, but you can't sue the company that purposely hid the adverse reactions of the vaccine that caused your child's seizures, brain damage, or death, just so they could make more profits?

post #13 of 412
Oh pish posh. This argument is nothing new. In 2009, The Michigan Law Review hosted a series of articles debating the topic. Four years later, Caplan is apparently wanting a little attention.

Everyone has already hashed out points about there needing to be a way to sue drug companies if individuals can sue these nebulous Patient Zeros.

Just recognize this as one more bullying tactic to threaten and frighten parents into compliance. irked.gif
post #14 of 412

Hilary Butler, telling us how she really feels!

 

Pied Pipers and duped lemmings

 

 

Quote:
There are days when you wonder where supposed experts leave their brains. Worse, you wonder about the people who follow like lemmings. Dr Arthur Caplan has scored another hit in the brainless bullseye for his recent medieval thinking blog. I will intersperse comments amongst his mental witterings:
post #15 of 412

Our family immunizes selectively, probably on a different basis of selection than others. Our daughter is receiving her MMR series, as well as DTaP, and polio, so far, because we've had no contra-indications in the family and feel that these vaccinations have been around longer therefore making more testing and data available, and also that these diseases are more serious dangers not only because of the reaction they might cause but because many docs now practicing will have never seen a case and the delay in accurate diagnosis/treatment. All of that said, just to add what perspective I am bringing to the issue.

 

Which is this: No, I don't feel that "Patient Zero" should have a responsibility to any others harmed as a result of a disease that is vaccine-preventable. No. 1, even this supposed "Patient Zero" must have had exposure/gotten the disease somewhere, so it's impossible to determine where to pass the buck. No. 2, this "Patient Zero" and/or family has already been "punished" for their choices - they have had the same disease. No. 3, it would be long and costly to implement a system that would allow this to happen, as surely it would have to have exemptions for situations such as if "Patient Zero" was found to be in a category that had unquestionable exemption from immunization, such as a child too young to be immunized or one with serious documented previous reactions who was not given a full schedule, or for people who were under a reasonable assumption that they were properly immunized. And No. 4, once we begin assigning blame for transmitting vaccine-preventable illnesses, where does it end?

 

Sometimes, bad things just happen and there is no legal "fault."

post #16 of 412

I'm pro-vaccine but I think this is nonsense. Every such case would disintegrate into a courtroom evaluation of the legitimacy of the decision not to vaccinate on the part of the non-vaccinating patient or their parents. If my kid gets the measles and I can prove she was vaccinated, I might be off the hook, but then Taxi has to explain her kids' vaccine reactions and why she chose to not continue to vaccinate, and then someone else who has no medical issues whatsoever gets grilled on whatever rationale they have, and it's all too much. I do think it's terrible when vulnerable people are badly injured or killed by a disease because somebody who could have gotten a vaccination didn't, but I don't think that addressing it through the law/courts is a good approach. 

post #17 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

I'm pro-vaccine but I think this is nonsense. Every such case would disintegrate into a courtroom evaluation of the legitimacy of the decision not to vaccinate on the part of the non-vaccinating patient or their parents. If my kid gets the measles and I can prove she was vaccinated, I might be off the hook, but then Taxi has to explain her kids' vaccine reactions and why she chose to not continue to vaccinate, and then someone else who has no medical issues whatsoever gets grilled on whatever rationale they have, and it's all too much. I do think it's terrible when vulnerable people are badly injured or killed by a disease because somebody who could have gotten a vaccination didn't, but I don't think that addressing it through the law/courts is a good approach. 

I think and hope this is how most people who vaccinate feel. It's simply absurd. We have to be able to choose what medical treatments we want to undergo. And for anyone who may be reading that thinks this is okay, that means you are agreeing to get every vaccine they come out with and suggest- no matter what. And it's a slippery slope to legislating other medical procedures as well.
post #18 of 412

One: if it was that easy OR common, it would have already happened! Heck they let Bill Gates write an episode of Law & Order or some other such Baby Boomer type show about it already! Actually, TaxiMom is right. Are you going to sue those with Medical Exemptions? My friend's daughter got ACTUAL measles from MMR. Are you going to sue her? You can't sue Merck, so forget that!

 

I love that Vax Manufacturers are lawsuit proof, but they want to sue children. 

 

Here are some other things Bio'Ethicists' have recently proposed: 

 

After Birth Abortion (aka, the new hip name for Infantacide and I know we are not allowed to discuss it here so it is not up for debate but I am citing an EXAMPLE of a radical idea that recently graced the pages of a BioEthics journal)

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

 

And BioEthicist Peter Singer just proposed throwing down a One Child Limit on yk, everyone. If you know how grisly that looks in China, you would shudder! He said this at a MAJOR global conference.

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/peter-singer-women-should-sacrifice-having-kids-to-protect-environment

 

So basically anything goes in BioEthics Now A Days, as long as it is sorta against individual rights.

 

There is some quote about Academia mostly propping up the actions of the Ruling Class and I believe that more and more lately.

post #19 of 412

By that logic I should also be able to sue families with tobacco use in the home, everyone who drinks soda or let's their kids drink soda, especially if it results in obesity and I am a nurse/CNA/EMT who throws her back out trying to lift them, and foreign travelers of all stripes!

post #20 of 412

This is also an old story. OF COURSE Public Radio picked it up. They are really one sided on this issue, really highlighting their funders (Gates & Gov) I have heard Public Radio stations say on air that DTaP is '98% effective' however, that is not what yk, the people who make the vaccines think! And it is easily fact checked. I think they speak not from a place of science on this issue but from a place of PSA, if you want to put it nicely.

 

He is on shaky territory trying to sue over a m/c too. His peers don't consider a fetus or a BABY a person until it is an active agent capable of self reflection, so I don't see how the baby would have the right of redress in a court of law in that climate. He can't have it both ways.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences