Should those who have chosen to not vaccinate their kids be legally liable for infecting other

[ChosenUnWisely]

people and any damages caused by their kid spreading a disease around?

Discuss

[NuclearDem]

1. Yes, they should.

Reckless, stupid behavior should carry consequences.

[on point]

2. Yes

[closeupready]

3. "Discuss" - no thanks.

[MohRokTah]

6. I love how the anti-vaxxers out themselves in these threads. eom

[NuclearDem]

7. Okie dokie lokie, bye then!

[ChosenUnWisely]

9. Curious why did you have to mention you are trashing a thread?

Why not ignore it and move on?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Yes.

Assault charges, possibly negligent homicide if deaths occur.

It's no different than driving into a crowd because you think you're special and can text and drive 'safely'.

(Caveat: By the use of the word 'choose', I'm assuming you mean people who don't have any actual real medical reason for not vaccinating, but are not doing so simply based on irrational fear.)

[ChosenUnWisely]

11. Yes, some folks cannt be vaciniated for real medical reasons. They get a pass, most of those folks

will take precautions because they also usually have a suppressed immune system.

[HappyMe]

13. Agreed.

They would also have to provide proof of the medical exception. No taking somebody's word for it.

[MohRokTah]

5. Yes. eom

[Brigid]

8. Difficult to prove proximate cause, I would think.

Though I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. You would want to be an epidemiologist, not a lawyer. nt

[HappyMe]

12. I think so.

I don't know how this could be done.

If schools require proof of immunizations and boosters, there would be a database right there of those who refuse. I think that there should be no exceptions to this.

[WinkyDink]

15. "I don't know how this could be done." Precisely.

[HappyMe]

16. I'm sure somebody will figure it out.

If you can't provide proof that you had your child immunized, you don't get into school. You then have that family's name. That's a start.

[WinkyDink]

57. So you want the govt to track down families and then...what? Imprison the parents and make orphans?

[HappyMe]

59. Vaccinate the kids.

[WinkyDink]

62. Wow. Because we just don't have enough police breaking down our doors. and now you want to give them

syringes? Or would you enlist the medical community to accompany the police?

[jeff47]

19. It's done through epidemiology.

You can trace who infected who by the timing of their illness, their travels, and the timing of other people's illnesses.

We identified "patient zero" in the Ebola outbreak. We're even pretty sure he caught it from bats in one specific tree.

AFAIK, epidemiology has never been used in court. So I do not know how it would hold up to legal requirements of "proof".

[HappyMe]

22. They bring medical experts and doctors

to court to testify all the time. I don't see why epidemiology experts would be barred from court.

[LisaL]

33. Ebola is not airborne.

Therefore a lot easier to trace.

[jeff47]

34. It's also in Africa

making it a lot harder to trace - lack of medical infrastructure.

Airborne just means more people get it, so you have more people to interview. You can still figure out who infected who.

Given some time, they'll be able to figure out who brought measles to Disneyland, for example.

[WinkyDink]

14. What next: Sue for all contagions? THINK IT THROUGH, OP.

[ChosenUnWisely]

18. I have, you can sue if someone gives you the clap or aids for example

suing for a cold would be silly but measles, chickenpox, mumps can all kill you.

If someone was walking around and shooting a gun in a public space with lots of people around, would not that person be liable for all the carnage they caused?

[LisaL]

36. Flu can kill you too.

Should we start suing for flu?

[WinkyDink]

58. You need to learn more about Cause-and-Effect and the law.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. At least 30 States have already prosecuted people for negligent or intenional transmission of HIV

What's the difference? It's a virus.

[LisaL]

35. You really don't see the difference?

[Bluenorthwest]

52. No, I don't. If you can prove the transmission in either case, it's just the same.

I personally oppose such laws and suits, but my point, is that those who are objecting now had years to object to the other and did not. It's a double standard. Asking 'should we do this' as if we don't already do that. It's already been done.
My point is that those affecting that this is a new question are incorrect, it is an old question.

It sounds like a good idea, but it is a very bad idea. It is also an idea that has been up and running for many, many years as a bad idea and in recent times efforts to end such bad laws are taking hold.
It's just a bit offensive that straight America seems to forget the entire history of HIV and the things that straight America did to others around it. All that suffering and all of the wrongs committed should have taught some lessons, but instead, not.

[pipi_k]

38. I'm pretty sure

that HIV exposure requires a bit more intimate/personal contact with an infected person, which would tend to narrow down the list of possible "suspects".


Whereas measles, although spread by direct contact, can also spread by merely breathing the contaminated air and touching a contaminated surface up to two hours later.


http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html


How is anyone going to know who touched the doorknob of the public bathroom ten minutes before they did?


There are literally thousands of ways for people to spread a virus like the measles without anyone being the wiser, and many people would not admit to being anywhere near places it might be traced to if there's the possibility of prosecution.

[COLGATE4]

78. You're absolutely right. Proving causation would be

an absolute nightmare (so as to not say 'impossible'). What's more, you don't really even get to that stage in your analysis - just proving that the parents of the supposed communicant had a legal duty to have their child immunized should be virtually impossible, at least given the current state of the law. I'm not aware of any juridiction that places that obligation (with attendant legal consequences for failure) on parents.

[WinkyDink]

60. Uh.....because the sexual act is a known, provable cause, and is not mere sneezing or a handshake.

[bluestateguy]

17. Yes, if it can be proven

And that would be very hard to do in court.

But I'm all for inconveniencing anti-vaxers with lawsuits.

[VScott]

20. A better solution would be to re-establish leper colonies.

only make it for uninoculated children and virus carriers.

It could be set up and designed like Disneyland (note the irony), to keep the little fucks entertained and occupied
until the epidemic blows over.

[Vattel]

21. Interesting question.

If parent A stupidly does not get his or her kid a vaccination and parent B does the same, then A shouldn't be liable if B's kid catches the relevant disease from A's kid. But if for medical reasons B's kid cannot be vaccinated, then liability seems reasonable to me.

The trick would be to show in court that there is a preponderance of evidence that B's kid caught the disease from A's kid, but maybe that would be possible in some cases (e.g., A's kid was the first to get the disease in the neighborhood and only two kids in the neighborhood got the disease, and A's kid was seen coughing in the face of B's kid at about the right time).

[LeftishBrit]

23. Not practical in most cases, I think

These diseases are so infectious ,and at the same time have such a long incubation period, that it can be hard to prove who infected whom when. This sounds like one of these ideas which seems simple on first glance, but ends up as just another complicated hassle that only benefits the lawyers.

Prevention is better than punishment after the fact. I think there is a case for going back to old-fashioned health certificates: schools, travel destinations, even individual families, etc. should have a right to exclude those without a valid health certificate (of vaccination, etc.) or a medical reason for not having vaccinations.

Also vaccinations must be free and readily available.

[LisaL]

31. And it's airborne.

You can ride on a train with someone and get infected, develop disease 3 weeks later.

[rock]

24. You can sue anybody for anything

To win all you have to do is convince a jury.

[oldandhappy]

26. I think so, but

in this world where gun-owners are not responsible when they kill people, I doubt anything will happen.

[HockeyMom]

27. Get rid of HIPPA?

You do not have the right to know another person's medical history under HIPPA. That old doctor/patient privilege. We had measles outbreak at school where I used to work. Did they tell us WHO? No. Did they say whether these kids were vaccinated or not? No. HIPPA. All any other parent could know was that there was a measles outbreak, and not the names of who had it.

I worked with an un-vaccinated child. The only people under HIPPA who could know the status of un vaccinated children werethose "with the right to know"; the Principal, School Nurse, and the teacher and para in their classroom. Not even other teachers had the right to know under HIPPA. We could not legally divulge this information to any other person, including the parents of other children. The only people who could divulge this information were the parents of their own children.

To take it up a notch. Do you have the right to know if Joe sitting next to in your office has had a flu shot? No, you don't. Does he have to tell you WHY he was in the hospital? No, he doesn't. HIPPA.

Why do you think they don't release the names of the people who caught measles from the Disney outbreak to the general public? HIPPA.

[HappyMe]

30. Your rights end where MY health begins.

[ohheckyeah]

37. Sounds good

but it isn't true. People go out in public all the time when they are sick.

[HappyMe]

39. A cold or the flu is one thing.

Running around with some sickness that was eradicated is another.

There shouldn't be any exceptions to getting a vaccine - NONE. The only exception would be those with a medical reason that must be documented by a doctor, and not some Mercola yahoo either.

[LisaL]

40. Flu can be deadly. People have died from it.

[HappyMe]

41. Measles, polio and TB are pretty awful too.

Too bad people want to bring that back. Yay! More sickness!

[LisaL]

42. TB?

Most people are not vaccinated against TB in US because current vaccine isn't highly effective.

[HappyMe]

43. A bunch of people would howl,

stamp their foot and refuse to even if it were effective. So yeah, TB.

I got my flu shot this year. Did you?

[LisaL]

44. Until such time an effective vaccine is developed, what do you propose somebody

should do about TB? You still going to blame them for getting it?
Your flu shot was only 22 % effective.
If you go the flu anyway, should you be sued for spreading it to others?

[HappyMe]

46. After the vaccine is perfected and sensible people get it,

yes I will blame the anti-science people for the spread of TB, measles, polio, mumps, rubella.....particularly when people with auto-immune diseases and cancer patients catch this. But of course, those people don't matter.

I haven't gotten the flu yet, so put away your lawsuit. Shot seems to be working great! My husband got one too. There was a round of flu where he works, neither of us got sick.

[ohheckyeah]

82. You

obviously missed my point. You declared that other's rights ended when it came to your health which isn't reality. The idea that there will be legally liability is just that, yours idea.

[HockeyMom]

45. Get rid of HIPPA

You have NO RIGHT to know anyone else's medical history. LAW. Call your Senator and tell them that you DEMAND that law be passed that no man, woman, or child can refuse to be vaccinated, or refuse any other preventative medical care that medince decides that is best for them.

Talk about going off the deep end on this.

[HappyMe]

48. Pfft!

If I had a child in school with an auto-immune sickness, and some precious unvaccinated snowflake made my kid sick - you are damn right those parents are responsible.

The solution is to not let any unvaccinated children into school. NONE. I always had to show proof of vaccines for my sons before they were allowed into school. That should be the LAW in every state.

[HockeyMom]

50. If they homeschool?

Can they prevented from being around YOUR CHILDREN at a park, movie house, supermarket? Tell me HOW you are even going to know this? Issue armbands for them to be worn out in public? Adults also?

[HappyMe]

54. If you don't give a fuck about

the health and well being of people that are vulnerable to your little germ buckets, then I can't help you.

[HockeyMom]

68. I AM elderly

I suppose I need to thank all of YOU for protecting me with your herd immunity. Does that include your MMR vax also? I guess you probably are since I was never vaccinated for those when I was a teen when that vax came out. Those stupid nurses in my school refused to vaccinate me, and I never bothered since then.

[WinkyDink]

63. Says you.

[HappyMe]

64. That's right.

Why am I expected to not give my kid a peanut butter sandwich if 1 kid has peanut allergies? My kid should just take that sandwich to school then.

[WinkyDink]

66. Oh, but I agree with THAT. Your child presumably isn't force-feeding another.

[HappyMe]

67. There have been stories where the school

prohibits peanut butter sandwiches or cookies.

[HockeyMom]

70. Schools where I worked had peanut free tables

in cafeteria. Kept kids with peanut allergies away from others who could bring their own PBJ sandwiches if their parents so chose.

[frylock]

51. it's HIPAA n/t

[likesmountains 52]

80. It's HIPAA, not HIPPA

[Johonny]

28. Should they pay a higher insurance rate because

they potentially burden the health care system more...

[HockeyMom]

71. Should Medicare also?

Refuse your flu or shingles vax, your rates go up? How about your free mamogram or colonoscrope? Hell, hos about your Free Yearly Welllness visit with "your" doctor?

Ditto private insurance? If you don't get this or that (not just vax), you will get SICK (maybe) and makes everyone else's rates so up. It is not about YOU but everyone else.

[HockeyMom]

76. Oh, you don't want to go down that road

Wellness Program where I used to work. Female employee questionnaire on breast cancer risk. "First child over 30 increases breast cancer risk". "How old were you when you had your first child?. "If you are childless and under 30 are you planning on having your first child in the the next year?" WHAAAATTT? "Having early menses before 12.45 years (down to MONTHS?) increases risk of breast cancer," "Early menses increase risk of breast cancer." "How old were you when you had your first period". What the FRIGGEN hell is a woman supposed to do about that one? Oh, maybe her Mommy didn't feed her right that caused early puberty. Maybe medicine can give a young girl a pill to delay puberty until the scientifically recommended age to "prevent" breast cancer? NO questions at all asked about family history. Might get into GENETIC factors which medicine cannot prevent, yet.

THESE kinds of preventative care? Non compliance with these "lifestyle" choices will increase risk of breast cancer and increase RATES.

[HappyMe]

29. Here's something --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141005687

[Ykcutnek]

32. Yes. nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. I think I prefer Australia's approach:

Impose a tax on those who refuse to vaccinate.

The problem with suing is that, if we use HIV as example, you have to prove somebody knowingly and purposefully transmitted a disease to someone else. If you take the "knowingly" and "purposefully" out of the equation, then you open the door for litigation against people who, by no fault of their own, may have passed a disease onto someone else.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Oh, HIV transmission laws in some places did not require knowingly or purposefully doing anything.

A lengthy discussion of this issue as it relates to HIV is available here:
http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission-hiv.htm

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. That's not quite right, actually.

Read the "Accidental Transmission" segment.

You can be prosecuted if:

-You don't know you have the virus and fail to use protection.
-You know you have the virus and use protection, but the protection fails somehow.

If you don't know you have the virus and use protection, but the protection fails, looks like you're in the clear... because you took reasonable steps to prevent transmission to partner given the information that was available to you.

[hardluck]

49. Liable for Civil Damage?

A statute could probably be crafted for such liability. I wonder about the practical aspects of it though. The case would be expert intensive on both sides. The parties would have to hire doctors, epidemiologists, and damages experts. That would get real expensive very quickly. And what is the payoff for the Plaintiff and their attorney? Except in unusual cases, you would be suing an individual of most likely modest means, and I do not know of any insurance carrier that covers this type of liability. So, you hire all of the experts, go to trial and prove liability and damages and get a judgment. What next? There are no deep pockets and most likely not enough assets to pay the attorney's fees and experts. You get a feel good judgment but that's it. Doesn't seem profitable from a Plaintiffs' bar prospective.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. If you read any number of online forum of parents with autistic children - you will find these

attitudes all over the place - even from educated people who should know better. Even the wife of Steven Stills the musician is convinced that vaccines were part of the reason why their son Henry has Asperger's. I think this is all nonsense - but to parents who thought their children were developing normally then seemed to change after receiving the MMR vaccine - many of them are convinced and nothing will change their mind.

I know for a fact that many anti-vaxers are loving parents who are simply misguided and misinformed.

[Xyzse]

56. See here, I could probably say yes.

Especially when they infect those who are very young and those who are unable to take a vaccination for valid reasons.

The only problem is, finding the connection, which can get harder.

[LostOne4Ever]

61. Yes (nt)

[WinkyDink]

65. Are you positing that somehow non-vaccinated kids can have their measles and mumps and

chicken-pox COUNTER-ACT the vaccinations of other kids? That they would render vaccines impotent?

I guess I'm just baffled.

[LeftishBrit]

73. The point is that...

(a) vaccinations are not absolutely 100% effective so that there's always some risk unless a large majority are vaccinated; (b) more importantly, there are some people who can't be vaccinated, such as immunocompromised people - who are also at particular risk for the diseases; (c) some vaccinations can't be given, or don't work, in the first few months of life, so that young babies are in danger - and again, may be at high risk for the diseases.

[LanternWaste]

69. Would be nice for all of them to come with an "I'm a half-witted idiot" warning label.

Would be nice for all of them to come with an "I'm a half-witted idiot" warning label.

[ChosenUnWisely]

79. I like that...tattooed across their foreheads!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

74. So long as they are optional

No.

[Takket]

75. you could only do that if they are mandatory

as long as they are optional no court is going to rule against someone who chose to do something that the government has not required you to do.

[Man from Pickens]

77. Good question

and it doesn't stop at vaccines. Should someone who goes to work sick with a contagious disease - whether it be the cold, flu, or something else - be liable for the consequences of spreading it to their co-workers, co-commuters, etc.?

Just raising the question, since if we do decide an individual can be liable for non-malicious spreading of disease, the work culture in this country will have to radically change. Back when I worked corporate gigs, I got slammed every time I took a day off sick to avoid infecting others, and people are rewarded for coming into work sick even though they get others sick too.

[Ilsa]

81. Can I sue someone I've never met for passing on TB at the grocery store?

Sorry, but you can't prove that so-n-so infected you. The best thing you can do is get yourself vaccinated, and provide passive immunity for infants too young for vax by giving them breastmilk if possible.