Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   The ethics of "disease parties" (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1432282-ethics-disease-parties.html)

teacozy 07-13-2014 06:42 PM

The ethics of "disease parties"
 
What do you guys think? By disease parties I mean chickenpox/measles/rubella/etc parties.

Is it ethical to deliberately try and expose a child to an infectious disease? Should it even be legal to do so?

If not, what should the "punishment" be for doing so?

If a parent deliberately infected a child with chickenpox and then exposed a baby too young to be vaccinated in public and they got seriously ill, should the parent have to pay for the medical bills?

Discuss.

Deborah 07-13-2014 07:00 PM

I'm much more concerned about hospitals spreading antibiotic resistant infections. But that is just me.

kathymuggle 07-13-2014 08:10 PM

Maybe?

I don't think it is ethical to place a perfectly healthy child at vaccine risk for a disease they do not have and have virtually no chance of getting (say diphtheria).

In some ways, the opposite holds true - is it fair to place a child at measles risks if their overall chance of getting measles is very, very low? Probably not.

As prevalence of disease rises, it makes more sense to place them at disease risk.

In a nutshell, the more prevalent the disease and the milder the disease, the more reasonable it becomes to attend disease parties.



I have never attended a disease party with the intention of getting the kids sick. Chicken pox found us, thank goodness.

I would let the girls attend a rubella party. I would be thrilled, actually, and I would keep a close eye on them afterwards and not let them leave the house while they were contagious (I would hate to spread it to pregnant women). I would brush up on my rubella knowledge to ensure I did this safely - but otherwsie, yup, thrilled. Rubella is not very common (some speculate that could change) and rubella is very, very mild in non-fetuses.

I have let my children with chicken pox play with others. It was always at someones house and they always knew we had chicken pox (indeed, it is a pet peeve of mine when people go places while sick without checking if that is ok with the hostess). The hostesses kids were always healthy and school age. I would not have done it if there was a pregnant woman, newborn, immunocompromised person, etc in the house, even if the other parents wanted to. I know better, even if they don't.

In any event, I think it is an ethical gray zone. To each their own.

applejuice 07-13-2014 09:15 PM

The entire concept of giving a healthy person a medical prophylactic as a vaccine which is known to cause disease, damage, permanent disability and death is an ethical problem.

samaxtics 07-14-2014 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applejuice (Post 17808210)
The entire concept of giving a healthy person a medical prophylactic as a vaccine which is known to cause disease, damage, permanent disability and death is an ethical problem.

:clap

Doing the above is okay but a fully consented (by both parties) exposure of children to chickenpox calls for punishment. Good grief.

In a day and age where the third leading cause of death is medical care, where sick people go to hospital and acquire disease there (re Deborah's post) and where there are signs reminding medical staff to wash their hands and yet still many fail to do so, we have questions about the legality of exposing children to what used to be described in medical books for eons as benign childhood diseases.

teacozy 07-14-2014 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17807978)
Maybe?

I don't think it is ethical to place a perfectly healthy child at vaccine risk for a disease they do not have and have virtually no chance of getting (say diphtheria).

In some ways, the oppostie holds true - is it fair to place a child at measles risks if their overall chance of getting measles is very, very low? Probably not.

As prevalence of disease rises, it makes more sense to place them at disease risk.

In a nutshell, the more prevalent the disease and the milder the disease, the more reasonable it becomes to attend disease parties.



I have never attended a disease party with the intention of getting the kids sick. Chicken pox found us, thank goodness.

I would let the girls attend a rubella party. I would be thrilled, actually, and I would keep a close eye on them afterwards and not let them leave the house while they were contagious (I would hate to spread it to pregnant women). I would brush up on my rubella knowledge to ensure I did this safely - but otherwsie, yup, thrilled. Rubella is not very common (some speculate that could change) and rubella is very, very mild in non-fetuses.

I have let my children with chicken pox play with others. It was always at someones house and they always knew we had chicken pox (indeed, it is a pet peeve of mine when people go places while sick without checking if that is ok with the hostess). The hostesses kids were always healthy and school age. I would not have done it if there was a pregnant woman, newborn, immunocompromised person, etc in the house, even if the other parents wanted to. I know better, even if they don't.

In any event, I think it is an ethical gray zone. To each their own.

You can't interpret risk like that. Their risk is low because they live in a mostly vaccinated population. That would change if we stopped vaccinating. I've asked this before. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Doctors tell parents "the risk right now is pretty low that they would get measles" so everyone stops vaccinating for the MMR. In 4 years you would have 16 million children with no immunity to measles and an outbreak would occur. Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die. Then everyone would need to start vaccinating again and in 4 or 5 years when it was once again under control, the cycle should start over. What exactly has been accomplished here other that needless suffering and death?

I wouldn't be happy if my son caught chicken pox. Your children now have a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles later in life. Have you ever seen someone suffer from shingles? It's agony and can cause permanent nerve damage. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. To each their own...

samaxtics 07-14-2014 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17809730)
Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die. Then everyone would need to start vaccinating again and in 4 or 5 years when it was once again under control, the cycle should start over. What exactly has been accomplished here other that needless suffering and death?

I wouldn't be happy if my son caught chicken pox. Your children now have a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles later in life. Have you ever seen someone suffer from shingles? It's agony and can cause permanent nerve damage. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. To each their own...

"Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die" Source please.

And how can you be sure that people who had varicella vaccine as children won't be susceptible to shingles later in life? Even the children who got the very first varicella vaccine are decades away from being in the risk group for shingles.

applejuice 07-14-2014 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samaxtics (Post 17809778)
And how can you be sure that people who had varicella vaccine as children won't be susceptible to shingles later in life? Even the children who got the very first varicella vaccine are decades away from being in the risk group for shingles.

The mean age for shingles has been dropping, who knows how or why, but the vaccine has changed the age dynamic for getting chickenpox/shingles.

One_Girl 07-14-2014 11:01 AM

I think that for diseases like chicken pox it's important to expose your child young if you aren't doing the vaccination. The risks of complications increase after puberty and exposure at some point is certain so early exposure is important. There are actually quite a few disease families that aren't vaccinated for that are common but have little effect before puberty and a lot after that I would expose my child to if I had another. Luckily beinh in childcare and public school exposed my dd to many of these young. I would not choose to expose my child to most live active viruses that are vaccine preventable but I don't see the choice to do so as being any different than my choice to weigh the pros and cons of vaccinations and choose vaccination instead.

teacozy 07-14-2014 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samaxtics (Post 17809778)
"Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die" Source please.

And how can you be sure that people who had varicella vaccine as children won't be susceptible to shingles later in life? Even the children who got the very first varicella vaccine are decades away from being in the risk group for shingles.

Death/hospitalization rates for measles have been linked and discussed ad nauseam on these forums.

Even if you wanted to use Europe's more conservative stats of 1 death per 3,000 cases you'd still be looking at over 5,300 deaths in an outbreak that hit 16 million children. Just in the US alone.

As for shingles, there have been studies that show that children vaccinated for chickenpox are 79% less likely to get shingles than unvaccinated children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23922376

Similar results were found after studying children with leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1658650

serenbat 07-14-2014 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17809730)

Your children now have a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles later in life. Have you ever seen someone suffer from shingles? It's agony and can cause permanent nerve damage. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. To each their own...

You do know the shingles vaccine is for everyone either? Some can't have it and that boost they use to get from being around children was a blessing to many. Some actually miss it!

applejuice 07-14-2014 12:01 PM

Shingles vaccine is not covered by most insurance companies nor by medicare.

kathymuggle 07-14-2014 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17809730)
You can't interpret risk like that. Their risk is low because they live in a mostly vaccinated population. That would change if we stopped vaccinating. I've asked this before. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Doctors tell parents "the risk right now is pretty low that they would get measles" so everyone stops vaccinating for the MMR. In 4 years you would have 16 million children with no immunity to measles and an outbreak would occur. Thousands would be hospitalized, thousands would die. Then everyone would need to start vaccinating again and in 4 or 5 years when it was once again under control, the cycle should start over. What exactly has been accomplished here other that needless suffering and death?

Yes, I can intrepret it that way.

I choose to use current stats for risk assessment - not historical stats, not projections of what might happen if everyone stopped vaccinating.

I sense that a lot of arguements with vaccines come down to personal choice versus public health. Your arguement (above) is really related to public health - but public health is second to me from personal health.

kathymuggle 07-14-2014 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applejuice (Post 17810578)
Shingles vaccine is not covered by most insurance companies nor by medicare.

Kind of ironic. Drive up the shingles rate in virtually everyone over 20 through mass chicken pox vaccination, then refuse to pay (assuming the shingles vaccine works - it is only 50% effective) for the mess you created.

teacozy 07-14-2014 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17810610)
Yes, I can intrepret it that way.

I choose to use current stats for risk assessment - not historical stats, not projections of what might happen if everyone stopped vaccinating.

I sense that a lot of arguements with vaccines come down to personal choice versus public health. Your arguement (above) is really related to public health - but public health is second to me from personal health.

Had read the bolded part of your statement as it being unfair to place a child at risk of measles vaccine, whoops.

Still, if there was an outbreak that effected millions of people your child would almost certainly be exposed and get measles. So your child benefits from the rest of us keeping vaccine rates high. I know non vaxxers say they don't care whether other people vaccinate or not.... but I'm not buying it. That's easy to say when the vast majority still vaccinate thus keeping most of the dangerous diseases at bay.

If Polio, diphtheria, and yes even measles came back that risk benefit analysis would be in overwhelming favor of you vaccinating- something most non vaxxers want to avoid at all cost.

Surely you aren't ambivalent about whether diphtheria/polio/etc become endemic again or not are you? Even from the standpoint of caring about your own children.

teacozy 07-14-2014 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17810618)
Kind of ironic. Drive up the shingles rate in virtually everyone over 20 through mass chicken pox vaccination, then refuse to pay (assuming the shingles vaccine works - it is only 50% effective) for the mess you created.

Shingles rates were going up before the vaccine was introduced, and has even gone up in countries that do not vaccinate for chicken pox.

There is no evidence as of yet that vaccinating for chickenpox has resulted in an increase rate of shingles.

kathymuggle 07-14-2014 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17810706)
Had read the bolded part of your statement as it being unfair to place a child at risk of measles vaccine, whoops.

I think it is unfair to subject a child to measles parties or measles vaccines, when the chances of them needing either is quite remote.


Still, if there was an outbreak that effected millions of people your child would almost certainly be exposed and get measles. So your child benefits from the rest of us keeping vaccine rates high. I know non vaxxers say they don't care whether other people vaccinate or not.... but I'm not buying it. That's easy to say when the vast majority still vaccinate thus keeping most of the dangerous diseases at bay.

If Polio, diphtheria, and yes even measles came back that risk benefit analysis would be in overwhelming favor of you vaccinating- something most non vaxxers want to avoid at all cost.

Surely you aren't ambivalent about whether diphtheria/polio/etc become endemic again or not are you? Even from the standpoint of caring about your own children.

The bottom portion is really messy. Do you want to get into the ethics of herd immunity, which diseases or vaccines apply, and the fun of not being able to get a separate measles vaccine, even if I wanted to? How about whose call vaccination of very rare diseases should be - mine or my childrens when they are of age? (it is their body). What about the fact that I would have actually preferred if my kids did get chicken pox, rubella, mumps, maybe even hep. a to a shot? That I would have preferred they had life long immunity under their belt - but that this option was taken away from me by vaxxers? We have gone round on herd immunity ethics so many times - there is no agreement and I doubt there will be.

Turquesa 07-14-2014 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17807762)
What do you guys think? By disease parties I mean chickenpox/measles/rubella/etc parties.

Is it ethical to deliberately try and expose a child to an infectious disease? Should it even be legal to do so?

The ethics are gray, as is this risk-benefit factor. Where there are risks and benefits from which to choose, no, it should not be illegal. The parents need to have a say in which risks and benefits they are willing to take on.

And . . . illegal? What would that look like? Chicken pox parties turning into underground, password-protected speakeasies? Jailhouses filling up with crunchy soccer moms and small children? (Maybe they'd have better luck getting exposure there. . . :wink)

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17807762)
If not, what should the "punishment" be for doing so?

Why is punishment in quotes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17807762)
If a parent deliberately infected a child with chickenpox and then exposed a baby too young to be vaccinated in public and they got seriously ill, should the parent have to pay for the medical bills?

Absolutely not. When you take a baby out, you do so at your own risk. I'm sure that by now you're familiar with this piece. http://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildre...ag/chickenpox/

Karen Ernst was rightfully called out in the comments for indignantly insisting that everyone at a social function be vaccinated for chicken pox to protect her newborn. One commenter astutely pointed out that "the risk you exposed your 10d
infant to was completely your choice." Harsh? Yes. But it's absolutely true.

A mom who makes this choice has no fundamental right to lash out at people who chose to try for an earlier, (and therefore safer), case of the chicken pox virus. Right now, we know that the chicken pox vaccine may provide 14 years of immunity. http://aapgrandrounds.aappublication...0/2/13.extract There are no recommended boosters after this time, so people run the risk of catching a dangerous case of chicken pox at a later age. So Ernst is demanding this kind of medical risk-taking from people just so she can take a newborn to a party and expose him to countless other pathogens? I'm saving my sympathies.

teacozy 07-14-2014 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17810778)
The bottom portion is really messy. Do you want to get into the ethics of herd immunity, which diseases or vaccines apply, and the fun of not being able to get a separate measles vaccine, even if I wanted to? How about whose call vaccination of very rare diseases should be - mine or my childrens when they are of age? (it is their body). What about the fact that I would have actually preferred if my kids did get chicken pox, rubella, mumps, maybe even hep. a to a shot? That I would have preferred they had life long immunity under their belt - but that this option was taken away from me by vaxxers? We have gone round on herd immunity ethics so many times - there is no agreement and I doubt there will be.

You didn't answer my question. If you want to start a discussion about age of consent for certain vaccines that could make for an interesting spin off thread perhaps.

"Surely you aren't ambivalent about whether diphtheria/polio/etc become endemic again or not are you? Even from the standpoint of caring about your own children?"

teacozy 07-14-2014 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turquesa (Post 17812690)

And . . . illegal? What would that look like? Chicken pox parties turning into underground, password-protected speakeasies? Jailhouses filling up with crunchy soccer moms and small children? (Maybe they'd have better luck getting exposure there. . . :wink)




Absolutely not. When you take a baby out, you do so at your own risk. I'm sure that by now you're familiar with this piece. http://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildre...ag/chickenpox/

Karen Ernst was rightfully called out in the comments for indignantly insisting that everyone at a social function be vaccinated for chicken pox to protect her newborn. One commenter astutely pointed out that "the risk you exposed your 10d
infant to was completely your choice." Harsh? Yes. But it's absolutely true.

A mom who makes this choice has no fundamental right to lash out at people who chose to try for an earlier, (and therefore safer), case of the chicken pox virus. Right now, we know that the chicken pox vaccine may provide 14 years of immunity. http://aapgrandrounds.aappublication...0/2/13.extract There are no recommended boosters after this time, so people run the risk of catching a dangerous case of chicken pox at a later age. So Ernst is demanding this kind of medical risk-taking from people just so she can take a newborn to a party and expose him to countless other pathogens? I'm saving my sympathies.

I was thinking more along the lines of a fine, or having to compensate for any medical bills that their child may have caused another child to accrue.

As for the last part, intent matters. There is a big difference between someone taking their child who they had no idea was contagious with chickenpox to the grocery store vs someone taking their child who they deliberately exposed to chickenpox to the grocery store and infecting someone.

Theres a reason why someone who gets a blow out and runs off the road killing someone gets a very different sentence than someone who hires a hit man to kill some. In both scenarios the result is the death of a person, but the intent is very different.

prosciencemum 07-14-2014 11:23 PM

Kathy - you want your kids to be exposed to illnesses so they don't get sick later?

There's a way to do that where they take a weakened version of the virus (that is still likely to induce an immune response but less likely to get you sick) store it in solution with some preservatives and send it to your doctor. They can then use a sterile needle to introduce it into your kids body......

Been done for years and it's been demonstrated to work quite well......

applejuice 07-15-2014 06:29 AM

I believe I covered the ethics of that method in post number 4 of this thread.


The thread is about ethics of deliberately exposing children to a disease that -
1. is better handled as a child,
2. the child will be exposed to eventually,
3. and the immunity of having the disease will produce lifelong immunity to future exposures as opposed to the transient, temporal, and undependable immunity from vaccination along with known/unknown and unacknowledged side effects.

kathymuggle 07-15-2014 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum (Post 17812826)
Kathy - you want your kids to be exposed to illnesses so they don't get sick later?

There's a way to do that where they take a weakened version of the virus (that is still likely to induce an immune response but less likely to get you sick) store it in solution with some preservatives and send it to your doctor. They can then use a sterile needle to introduce it into your kids body......

Been done for years and it's been demonstrated to work quite well......


:eyesroll on the sarcasm.


I want them to be exposed to certain diseases because it will confer stronger and longer lasting immunity than the vaccines.

I also believe there may be some benefits to diseases (example: mumps and lower ovarian cancer risk, chicken pox and less allergies).

kathymuggle 07-15-2014 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17812722)
I was thinking more along the lines of a fine, or having to compensate for any medical bills that their child may have caused another child to accrue.

As for the last part, intent matters. There is a big difference between someone taking their child who they had no idea was contagious with chickenpox to the grocery store vs someone taking their child who they deliberately exposed to chickenpox to the grocery store and infecting someone.

Theres a reason why someone who gets a blow out and runs off the road killing someone gets a very different sentence than someone who hires a hit man to kill some. In both scenarios the result is the death of a person, but the intent is very different.

Consent matters as well.

If i tackle you for no reason on the street and without consent, it would be considered assault.

If I tackle you during a rugby match - it is fine. Consent is assumed and it is part of the game.

With a chicken pox party, consent is given. You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well.

teacozy 07-15-2014 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17813346)
Consent matters as well.

If i tackle you for no reason on the street and without consent, it would be considered assault.

If I tackle you during a rugby match - it is fine. Consent is assumed and it is part of the game.

With a chicken pox party, consent is given. You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well.

Of course consent matters, but consent is very different when talking about a minor child vs adult.

Lock an adult in a room against their will and refuse to let them leave and you're facing some very severe charges. Do that to a child/teen and it's called timeout or grounding depending on the age.

"You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well."

Not really. There are limits to what you can consent to. It's not an all or nothing deal. I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo. Or any number of things.

Where chickenpox parties fall in all this is debatable. But measles parties, for me, would fall on the negligence/illegal side of the grey zone.

serenbat 07-15-2014 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17814738)

Not really. There are limits to what you can consent to. It's not an all or nothing deal. I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo. Or any number of things.



I have NO idea where you get this but yes as a parent you can consent for these things, you can let your child ride in the back seat of a pickup (many states have NO objections), be in a car seat or not use a seatbelt, the difference is you can be charged with a criminal act/violation in "some" states, if you are caught.

You can consent to have your child tanned, tattooed and even hair lasered off, depends on where you are.

45 states have restrictions - last time I looked we have 50! :grin: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-piercing.aspx
want to ride in the back of a truck? - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cargoareas
need a child with a tan? http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...trictions.aspx

your arguments towards what Kathy said are VERY weak!

teacozy 07-15-2014 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat (Post 17815002)
I have NO idea where you get this but yes as a parent you can consent for these things, you can let your child ride in the back seat of a pickup (many states have NO objections), be in a car seat or not use a seatbelt, the difference is you can be charged with a criminal act/violation in "some" states, if you are caught.

You can consent to have your child tanned, tattooed and even hair lasered off, depends on where you are.

45 states have restrictions - last time I looked we have 50! :grin: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-piercing.aspx
want to ride in the back of a truck? - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cargoareas
need a child with a tan? http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...trictions.aspx

your arguments towards what Kathy said are VERY weak!

Serenbat, do you know where I live?

I absolutely could not legally consent to my child riding in the back of a pickup or to them getting a permanent tattoo. Both of those things are ILLEGAL where I live.

Further, ALL 50 states have carseat laws of some kind for infants and children. "All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands require child safety seats for infants and children fitting specific criteria." http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/l...fety_laws.html

If you really think you could legally put a 4 month old baby in the back of a pickup in any state and barrel down the highway at 70 MPH.... I don't know what to say.

Also, IIRC, Kathy lives in Alberta (let me know if I'm mistaken) and putting a young child in the back of a pickup is illegal there as well due to certain restrictions. So that would be something she could not legally consent to there.

"A person may ride in the bed of a truck: (1) when the nature of the person’s occupation requires the person to ride in the bed; or (2) when the person is engaged or employed in agricultural, horticultural, or livestock raising operations and riding in the bed of the truck is related to one of these operations." http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/seat...uickjumpCanada

To pick something that is illegal in every state, lets say circumcising a baby girl. Can't do it in the US, even with parental consent. I am also almost certain it would be illegal for me to buy my child cigarettes to smoke if they were under the age of 18, even if they had my permission to do so.

Point is, parental consent has limits. The fact that we have the ability to consent to vaccines does not mean we have the ability to consent to anything and everything.

serenbat 07-15-2014 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy (Post 17815138)
Serenbat, do you know where I live? That is why I asked!

I absolutely could not legally consent to my child riding in the back of a pickup or to them getting a permanent tattoo. Both of those things are ILLEGAL where I live. But it's not everyplace!

Further, ALL 50 states have carseat laws of some kind for infants and children. "All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands require child safety seats for infants and children fitting specific criteria." http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/l...fety_laws.html

If you really think you could legally put a 4 month old baby in the back of a pickup in any state and barrel down the highway at 70 MPH.... I don't know what to say. YES you can, it DOES happen - you need to be caught! This does happen all over, some people get caught, some don't - the assumption you feel this is CONSENT is not the correct word to use!

To pick something that is illegal in every state, lets say circumcising a baby girl. Can't do it in the US, even with parental consent. I am also almost certain it would be illegal for me to buy my child cigarettes to smoke if they were under the age of 18, even if they had my permission to do so.

Again, this is about being "caught" to say it's about consent is the wrong word to use.

Point is, parental consent has limits. The fact that we have the ability to consent to vaccines does not mean we have the ability to consent to anything and everything.

You seem quite confused with the word consent and it's meaning in the examples you used.


ETA- when I strap my child into the car there is NO ONE I give "consent" to. The act does not require consent. At a medical office for a procedure or to a host of a party for a service I can GIVE consent.

teacozy 07-15-2014 03:56 PM

[QUOTE=serenbat;17815154]You seem quite confused with the word consent and it's meaning in the examples you used.


No, I'm not confused.

Your argument is that as long as you don't get caught you can legally consent to anything? What?

And yes I would have to give consent to a tattoo artist to tattoo my child. I would also theoretically have to give someone consent to take my child for a ride in the back of a pickup. Except I legally can't. I would theoretically give a doctor consent to circumcise my daughter-except I can't. Etc.

I could consent to my child drinking under the age of 21 in my state though. So there's that.

serenbat 07-15-2014 04:59 PM

[quote=teacozy;17815450]
Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat (Post 17815154)


No, I'm not confused. The way you word it the FRIST time is confusing the word use in the context you used.

Your argument is that as long as you don't get caught you can legally consent to anything? What?

And yes I would have to give consent to a tattoo artist to tattoo my child. I would also theoretically have to give someone consent to take my child for a ride in the back of a pickup. Except I legally can't. WRONG! I would theoretically give a doctor consent to circumcise my daughter-except I can't. Etc.

I could consent to my child drinking under the age of 21 in my state though. So there's that.


What you originally wrote -
I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo.


There is a vast difference in how you use the word and how you wrote it the first time! - consent (give permission to another to do an act) - YES you can give consent, you can do it for a host of things, you are in trouble if you are caught and if it's illegal where you are, but bottom line is YOU give it to another to do so.

Who on earth do you give consent to for YOU to put your child in or out of a car seat? UNLESS you are giving consent for another person to preform the act - no one from the state (no matter where you live) comes to your home for YOU to do the act. That is NOT consent. You are in violation if you drive and IF you are caught and the child is not in properly.

This list of example you gave at just that a list. You get in trouble if it is a violation within your state IF you are caught.

Giving someone consent for what ever reason is just that - an act to perform on your behalf. Some places things are legal some places they are not. The issue is being caught IF it is illegal where you are.

Murder happens all the time and people are never caught. You are naive if you think tattoos, riding in pick up, female genital mutilation, etc are not happening here in the US.

Context matters.:wink:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.