Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Should parents who refuse childhood vaccines be liable if their choice harms someone else’s kid?

Should parents who refuse childhood vaccines be liable if their choice harms someone else’s kid?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
73 Posts 41 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • V voroxpete@sh.itjust.works

    Completely agree. I said more in my own comment, but if you’re interested, here’s the relevant criminal code that backs up what you’re saying; https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Failing_to_Provide_the_Necessaries_of_Life_(Offence)

    L This user is from outside of this forum
    L This user is from outside of this forum
    leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    wrote last edited by
    #62

    Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life

    I’m not fluent in legalese, but that seems about right, yes.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • D dubyakay@lemmy.ca

      To partake in society you have to accept societal contracts. One such contract is to not be a dick to others. If you don’t vaccinate yourself against certain things, you are liable for spreading the disease. And thus you are being a dick. And thus you break the contract.

      If you excuse yourself from society going forward though, I see no problem with your stance.

      B This user is from outside of this forum
      B This user is from outside of this forum
      bastion@feddit.nl
      wrote last edited by
      #63

      I reject societal contracts that do not support individual and body sovereignty. Of course, you can do with that as you will, because… …well… …sovereignty. Just know that if you take body sovereignty from people in one area, you empower the government to make decisions about your body, as well.

      …and as we all have seen, the benevolence of the government is largely dependent on what party is in power, and what societal dynamics are in play. it’s… …unreliable, at best.

      I literally called it, the day Democrats started pushing forced vaccinations, that the Republicans would go for reversal of abortion law. …and they fucking did, and they fucking succeeded in many ways, and that is direct consequence of permitting the government to violate body sovereignty, even when the voiced arguments do not pertain to it.

      So, you can have your contiguous society, with forced social contracts rather than ones people actually are willing to agree to. …and you’ll also have the consequences, whether or not you can cognize how bad that will be right now.

      1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • Y yezzey@lemmy.ca

        Kids shouldn’t be getting measles in the first place. No measles, no problems you described. No anger here.

        R This user is from outside of this forum
        R This user is from outside of this forum
        Rodsthencones
        wrote last edited by
        #64

        Bacteria and viruses spread. It’s what they do. We need a way to adapt to them. Vaccines are good, being healthy probably helps more. What we need is real food, housing and health care and education. Instead we have arguments about vaccines. Sad really.

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        • M mojomcjojo@lemmy.world

          Felony murder, in my opinion.

          R This user is from outside of this forum
          R This user is from outside of this forum
          RodgeGrabTheCat 🇨🇦🏴‍☠️
          wrote last edited by
          #65

          Even if the child dies, withholding a vaccine would have to be made illegal. You need to be committing a felony first, someone dies, then get charged with felony murder.

          1 Reply Last reply
          1
          • F falschgeldfurkan@lemmy.world

            Thanks, appreciate the write-up! I’m just wondering that myself, my question wasn’t meant as an anti-vax post.

            B This user is from outside of this forum
            B This user is from outside of this forum
            bassgirl09@lemmy.world
            wrote last edited by
            #66

            You’re welcome! 🙂

            1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • Y yezzey@lemmy.ca

              We are not litigious as Canadians, but maybe we should be in this aspect.

              S This user is from outside of this forum
              S This user is from outside of this forum
              savethetuahawk@lemmy.ca
              wrote last edited by
              #67

              Because we have loser pays laws for civil suits.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • A anonymous111@lemmy.world

                I think there are a few issues:

                1. How do you prove kid A gave kid B measels?

                2. Why isn’t kid B vaccinated? Because they don’t need to be, group immunity. Well that is no longer true with anti vax so…

                3. Kid B then gives kid C measels, so kid B’s parents are now liable.

                4. Your in small claims court. You have to prove damages. So you’re going for loss of earning for an adult looking after the kid + pain and suffering. Is that payout going to be worth filing papers, legal advice etc.

                You’d be better passing a law to mandate vaccines, but that won’t be politically viable.

                Just my thoughts - am not Canadian.

                I This user is from outside of this forum
                I This user is from outside of this forum
                ilikeboobies@lemmy.ca
                wrote last edited by ilikeboobies@lemmy.ca
                #68

                pain and suffering.

                Minus this, that’s not a thing in Canada. You could seek future earnings if the child died but that’s hard to prove when they don’t even have a GED and it’s unlikely when the child is dead. (Also would take it out of small claims)

                A 1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • V voroxpete@sh.itjust.works

                  I’m personally of the opinion that refusing to vaccinate your kids should not be a choice parents get to make. Just like how you can’t choose to starve your children, no matter how deeply and truly you believe that we can draw all our necessary sustenance from the air.

                  In Canada we have a legal concept called the “Duty of persons to provide necessaries.”

                  Here’s the relevant legal code:

                  215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;

                  Link Preview Image
                  Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life (Offence) - Criminal Law Notebook

                  favicon

                  (www.criminalnotebook.ca)

                  I firmly believe that vaccinations should be deemed one of the “necessaries of life” under this article of the criminal code. Like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. You shouldn’t have a choice in this matter. We shouldn’t even be talking about whether or not that choice harms someone else’s kid, because that’s actually beside the point. At a basic level, we as a society have already agreed that children’s right to be properly sheltered and cared for outweighs their parents rights to decide how they live. The idea that there should be an exception for vaccines - something that can mean the difference between life and death - is absolutely ridiculous.

                  quick_snail@feddit.nlQ This user is from outside of this forum
                  quick_snail@feddit.nlQ This user is from outside of this forum
                  quick_snail@feddit.nl
                  wrote last edited by quick_snail@feddit.nl
                  #69

                  Excuse me, I’m breath-tarian /s

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • A Hemingways_Shotgun

                    If it can be proven. Yes. But there are too many variables to be able to prove it usually.

                    quick_snail@feddit.nlQ This user is from outside of this forum
                    quick_snail@feddit.nlQ This user is from outside of this forum
                    quick_snail@feddit.nl
                    wrote last edited by
                    #70

                    Antibodies?

                    A 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • I ilikeboobies@lemmy.ca

                      pain and suffering.

                      Minus this, that’s not a thing in Canada. You could seek future earnings if the child died but that’s hard to prove when they don’t even have a GED and it’s unlikely when the child is dead. (Also would take it out of small claims)

                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      anonymous111@lemmy.world
                      wrote last edited by
                      #71

                      Same here. Your pain and suffering is like $40.

                      Crazy when you see US damages being in the millions.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • quick_snail@feddit.nlQ quick_snail@feddit.nl

                        Antibodies?

                        A This user is from outside of this forum
                        A This user is from outside of this forum
                        Hemingways_Shotgun
                        wrote last edited by
                        #72

                        I’m assuming you mean that the kid that wasn’t vaccinated wouldn’t have antibodies in his system? But how do you tie that to “This is definitely the kid that gave the measles to my child”.

                        Could have been that kid in his class that is unvaccinated. It could have been a kid he hung out with on the playground, or a kid he walked past in a mall.

                        There’s no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that just because the kid in his class wasn’t vaxxed, that he was necessarily the specific vector for your child to get measles. It’s impossible. To many variables.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        • Y yezzey@lemmy.ca

                          Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question…

                          If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

                          I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

                          Is that unreasonable?

                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                          bitjunkie@lemmy.world
                          wrote last edited by
                          #73

                          Or their own. Lock them the fuck up.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0

                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Login or register to search.
                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                          • First post
                            Last post