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
54 Posts 33 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.
  • L leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com

    Parents who don’t vaccinate their children without a good medical reason should be treated as any other parent who intentionally abuses, harms, mistreats, or abandons their children, simple as that.

    If they harm other people on top of that, then that should probably count as attempted murder plus aggravated assault and battery, or some equivalent.

    It’s a shame that rampant wilful idiocy with intent to cause harm and mayhem isn’t a criminal offence, though, because they should also be charged with that.

    A This user is from outside of this forum
    A This user is from outside of this forum
    That Weird Vegan
    wrote last edited by
    #41

    You know, we eliminated smallpox in the wild, and mostly eliminated polio, by giving vaccines. Fuck these moronic idiotic parents not vaxxing their kiddos. It ABSOLUTELY should count as child abuse to not vax your kid.

    1 Reply Last reply
    6
    • 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?

      F This user is from outside of this forum
      F This user is from outside of this forum
      falschgeldfurkan@lemmy.world
      wrote last edited by
      #42

      If the other kid is vaccinated, shouldn’t they stay healthy instead?

      B 1 Reply Last reply
      2
      • BurgerBaronB BurgerBaron

        How are you going to deal with pesky things like religious freedoms and the Mennonites/similar cults?

        N This user is from outside of this forum
        N This user is from outside of this forum
        nyan@lemmy.cafe
        wrote last edited by
        #43

        You keep them out of public schools to reduce the chance of them exposing other people as much as possible. Their co-religionists aren’t likely to press charges, and many of these extreme religious groups don’t want their kids in mainstream schools anyway.

        In other words, you can use government-funded schools or you can refuse vaccination (and pay for your kids to attend a private school that allows unvaccinated students, or homeschool them and do the work yourself). You can’t have both. That’s how school vaccine mandates are supposed to work in the first place. We’ve just gotten way too lax about upholding and enforcing them.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • trickdacy@lemmy.worldT trickdacy@lemmy.world

          The most disturbing thing about reality is that we have morons opting their children and neighbors into preventable diseases because of absurd lies they read on Facebook.

          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
          #44

          Nah. It’s not concerning that otherwise intelligent people can’t figure out how to deal with their own lives without resorting to controlling others.

          trickdacy@lemmy.worldT 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B bastion@feddit.nl

            Nah. It’s not concerning that otherwise intelligent people can’t figure out how to deal with their own lives without resorting to controlling others.

            trickdacy@lemmy.worldT This user is from outside of this forum
            trickdacy@lemmy.worldT This user is from outside of this forum
            trickdacy@lemmy.world
            wrote last edited by
            #45

            Are you an anti-vaxxer?

            B 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?

              M This user is from outside of this forum
              M This user is from outside of this forum
              mojomcjojo@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #46

              Felony murder, in my opinion.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • 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?

                H This user is from outside of this forum
                H This user is from outside of this forum
                HubertManne
                wrote last edited by
                #47

                Its impossible to prove you caught an airborne disease from a specific individual.

                1 Reply Last reply
                5
                • F falschgeldfurkan@lemmy.world

                  If the other kid is vaccinated, shouldn’t they stay healthy instead?

                  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
                  #48

                  There are a few considerations to make regarding the thought process of “if the other kid is vaccinated, then they should stay healthy,” even when exposed to illnesses that they are vaccinated for.

                  (1) Vaccines are not 100% effective. In the case of the Measles vaccine it is estimated to be 93-97% effective – this is a very effective vaccine. So, if someone is vaccinated, then yes, they likely will stay healthy even if they are exposed to a case of the Measles.

                  (2) Not everyone can be vaccinated for medical reasons whether it is due to allergies to something in the vaccine or another medical issue. So, these people are forced to rely on what is called herd immunity (everyone who can be vaccinated around them is vaccinated, so the virus or bacteria will not be around to infect the unvaccinated person). Unfortunately, for herd immunity to work specifically for the Measles scientists believe that 95% of the population needs to be immune to stop its spread. This is because the Measles is extremely spreads extremely easily – about 90% of people who are not immune to Measles will become ill when they are exposed to the Measles.

                  (3) The last point that I will make is that if a pathogen (virus or bacteria) is allowed to circulate in the population due to low vaccine uptake, then there is a stronger likelihood that the pathogen will mutate (change) to get around the protection of the vaccine. Then nobody is protected and scientists get the fun of trying to create a new vaccine for the mutated version.

                  Take what I say here with a grain of salt since I am not an immunologist, physician, or scientist. I just like to know the pros and cons of vaccines as well as how best to protect myself, my family, and my friends from preventable illnesses. I learned a lot of this information by talking to my doctor, reading from medical journals (Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature Immunology, etc.), and also checking major medical center internet sites for information such as Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, MassGeneral, etc. There is a lot of excellent information to be had from our scientific community to help make an informed choice - much of what I located was open and free to the public to read.

                  F 1 Reply Last reply
                  3
                  • B bassgirl09@lemmy.world

                    There are a few considerations to make regarding the thought process of “if the other kid is vaccinated, then they should stay healthy,” even when exposed to illnesses that they are vaccinated for.

                    (1) Vaccines are not 100% effective. In the case of the Measles vaccine it is estimated to be 93-97% effective – this is a very effective vaccine. So, if someone is vaccinated, then yes, they likely will stay healthy even if they are exposed to a case of the Measles.

                    (2) Not everyone can be vaccinated for medical reasons whether it is due to allergies to something in the vaccine or another medical issue. So, these people are forced to rely on what is called herd immunity (everyone who can be vaccinated around them is vaccinated, so the virus or bacteria will not be around to infect the unvaccinated person). Unfortunately, for herd immunity to work specifically for the Measles scientists believe that 95% of the population needs to be immune to stop its spread. This is because the Measles is extremely spreads extremely easily – about 90% of people who are not immune to Measles will become ill when they are exposed to the Measles.

                    (3) The last point that I will make is that if a pathogen (virus or bacteria) is allowed to circulate in the population due to low vaccine uptake, then there is a stronger likelihood that the pathogen will mutate (change) to get around the protection of the vaccine. Then nobody is protected and scientists get the fun of trying to create a new vaccine for the mutated version.

                    Take what I say here with a grain of salt since I am not an immunologist, physician, or scientist. I just like to know the pros and cons of vaccines as well as how best to protect myself, my family, and my friends from preventable illnesses. I learned a lot of this information by talking to my doctor, reading from medical journals (Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature Immunology, etc.), and also checking major medical center internet sites for information such as Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, MassGeneral, etc. There is a lot of excellent information to be had from our scientific community to help make an informed choice - much of what I located was open and free to the public to read.

                    F This user is from outside of this forum
                    F This user is from outside of this forum
                    falschgeldfurkan@lemmy.world
                    wrote last edited by
                    #49

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

                    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?

                      Malle_YenoM This user is from outside of this forum
                      Malle_YenoM This user is from outside of this forum
                      Malle_Yeno
                      wrote last edited by
                      #50

                      Not an antivaxxer, but that sounds difficult to prove. Even for mere liability, how would you demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that someone got sick specifically because someone else didn’t vaccinate?

                      (Also I really hope small-claims court isn’t the appropriate avenue for trying something as serious as infecting a child with measles)

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      3
                      • trickdacy@lemmy.worldT trickdacy@lemmy.world

                        Are you an anti-vaxxer?

                        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
                        #51

                        I’m absolutely for the rights of people to either have or refuse vaccines. Of course, in your mind, that probably just equates to being an anti-vaxxer. I get vaccines when it makes sense to me to do so, which doesn’t include all vaccines.

                        D trickdacy@lemmy.worldT 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • B bastion@feddit.nl

                          I’m absolutely for the rights of people to either have or refuse vaccines. Of course, in your mind, that probably just equates to being an anti-vaxxer. I get vaccines when it makes sense to me to do so, which doesn’t include all vaccines.

                          D This user is from outside of this forum
                          D This user is from outside of this forum
                          dubyakay@lemmy.ca
                          wrote last edited by dubyakay@lemmy.ca
                          #52

                          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.

                          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?

                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            Hemingways_Shotgun
                            wrote last edited by
                            #53

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

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            • B bastion@feddit.nl

                              I’m absolutely for the rights of people to either have or refuse vaccines. Of course, in your mind, that probably just equates to being an anti-vaxxer. I get vaccines when it makes sense to me to do so, which doesn’t include all vaccines.

                              trickdacy@lemmy.worldT This user is from outside of this forum
                              trickdacy@lemmy.worldT This user is from outside of this forum
                              trickdacy@lemmy.world
                              wrote last edited by
                              #54

                              Yeah, honestly you are an anti-vaxxer if your personal feelings (or crackpot theories) negatively affect your perception of vaccine science even slightly. What you’re expressing here is an idea that has killed countless people and it will only get worse. Everyone should thank you for bringing back measles though, because your valiant freedom fighting “helped” us in that way.

                              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