There’s another problem: Usually a child will only contract a disease like measles if he himself is unvaccinated. A measles vaccine, in theory, will usually prevent a person from getting measles.
Therefore, in order for this whole “I’m going to sue you for transmitting disease because you refused to get vaccinated” thing to work, you would have unvaccinated children’s parents suing another unvaccinated children’s parents for…not having vaccinated.
To use a rather ill-fitting analogy (I can’t think of a better one at the moment), it would be almost like an uninsured car driver suing another uninsured car driver for being…uninsured. It would seem hypocritical.
Since you just entered this conversation, and have never participated before in threads on this topic, let me point out that some children cannot be vaccinated for various medical reasons, and a for a small percentage the vaccination doesn’t seem to take hold. Post #20(which you obviously haven’t seen yet) has a link that explains “herd immunity”.
It’d be nice to prevent a disastrous outbreak in the first place rather than just hoping that it’ll have the desired effect
How typical. “You shouldn’t be concerned about X, focus on Y instead”. As if you can’t take one position because it automatically excludes another.
Why are you bothering to post in this thread, while violence is ravaging the Middle East?
That would be nice, but people often just don’t think that way. Sometimes only major tragedy will jolt them into action, or a change of attitude. The same thing applies in a wide variety of industries or activities; sometimes tragic death serves to drive a point home.
Paradoxically, the safer people are, the less necessary they feel that those safety measures are (the safety measures that keep them safe in the first place.)
How do you “fire” parents from a medical practice?
Just a little tweaking to the definition of negligence.It’s the difference between “refused to vaccinate” and “didn’t vaccinate”. Not all the unvaccinated children are unvaccinated because of parental refusals-some are unvaccinated because of medical reasons, and those parents shouldn’t be seen as negligent. And of course the parents of children who vaccinations didn’t take can’t be seen as negligent.
But the cars- actually a good analogy except of course that drivers don’t sue each other for being uninsured . Car accidents often involve liability on both sides - and there’s a whole civil court system that involves determining who has how much liability and how does the plaintiff’s liability affect recovery for damages, and defendants bringing in third-party defendants (you sue me for rear-ending you and I bring in the mechanic who fixed the brakes that failed). In a case where both sets of parents “refused to vaccinate”, the same system would do the same things.
If it hadn’t been required for school attendance, I don’t know if my parents would have gotten me vaccinated. I think the same goes for the majority of folks who get their kids vaccinated. They do so not because they are thinking about their kids’ or society’s welfare. They do so because they don’t want the door closed on them on the first day of school.
If schools would actually enforce vaccination policies instead of granting a waiver to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who happens to have a special snow flake opinion, this would fix some of the madness, I think. People are inherently selfish and self-centered. You can’t convince them to do the right thing by showing them sad pictures of pock-marked toddlers. Because they can always rationalize those images away. “That would never happen to MY baby!!!” You have to make it a concrete, pocketbook issue to make people “do” right.
I’m betting if parents had to pay $1000 to get a vaccination waiver (medical reasons excluded, of course), you’d see some of them stepping away from their ideological oppositions.
By telling the parents “If you refuse to vaccinate, you’ll have to find another doctor”. Doctors in private practice don’t have to treat every patient who wants to see that doctor. They can’t dismiss a patient for an illegal reason like race or gender or religion, and they can’t dismiss a patient in the midst of ongoing care (like the one they operated on three days ago) but they can dismiss patients for being non-compliant with their recommendations.
Surely the success of the antivaccination crowd has shown you the difference between what we think we are mandating and what happens in practice. The question is how we would be able to dial up the heat if we decided to quite literally force vaccination.
Just to piss you off. 
What I am pointing out with the fat kid problem is that we tend to focus on the cause du jour. Further, the idea of punishing bad parents is very problematic in execution.
So first, if we are just trying to keep kids healthy, a lack of herd immunity is not a particularly large danger for those of us who think vaccination is a good idea. It might push us to double check titres if the anti-vax crowd really gets out of control, but as an overall problem, it’s just not that high on the list as an issue except for those too stupid to vaccinate.
And second, for the same reason it’s hard to punish parents who own fat kids, it’s hard to punish parents who own unvaccinated ones. So it’s a great recreational outrage, but I don’t see much coming of pro-vaccination hollering in particular, and enforcing better parenthood in general.
To the point of the OP, I do not think non-vaccinating parents should be held criminally liable, and although I’m fine with them being held civilly liable, it would be an interesting case to follow from the standpoint of cause and effect. Or maybe we’ll get a really good index case of Measles Mary but it will turn out she’s some undocumented immigrant or Bible Belt WalMart employee instead of the billionaire’s child, and there just won’t be that much money to squeeze out.
We aren’t going to have a disastrous outbreak. Take a chill powder. We might lose a handful of kids in an outbreak, but we can make more. We won’t lose nearly as many as we lose to Cheetos and soda pop.
Non-vaccinating parents fall along two lines:
-
Selfish parents who don’t want to take any risk with Baby Precious but hope everyone else takes whatever amount of risk there is.
-
Rabid, relatively dumb, anti vaxxers.
The first group, as I mentioned earlier, will collapse like a paper tent once Precious is in more danger from an outbreak than from a vaccination. For any widespread, “disastrous” outbreak in the making, they’ll be getting their vaccines.
The second group will run for the hills, where they are likely already living. 
How about lost wages for the parent who had to stay home with a sick kid and medical bills for the kid for care related to the vaccine preventable disease?
Of course. No one gets the typhoid vaccine unless they’re traveling where there’s typhoid. But these vaccines are not on the childhood vaccination schedule.
Sally is 8 months old, and can’t be vaccinated because she’s too young.
Timmy has leukemia and can’t be vaccinated because his chemotherapy has damaged his immune system.
Joe is allergic to gelatin, so he can’t be vaccinated, because there’s gelatin in the vaccine.
Jill’s been vaccinated, but she’s in the 1-3% of people who get vaccinated, but don’t form antibodies or immunity against the vaccine. Of course, she has no idea of that. As far as she knows, she’s been vaccinated and she’s cool.
Any of the 4 can get measles. Better that we have as many vaccinated people as possible around them - the fewer the number of people who can catch and spread the measles, the better for these kids.
You give them a 30 days notice that they have to find another doctor because you won’t be caring for them after March 1.
I think you have the handful of isolated cases of children per year dying from vaccine-preventable illnesses confused with some other way to game the numbers, like add over 5,000 adult influenza deaths in your total stats. Those are not usually anti-vaxxers, in my experience, and where they are, they are adults anyway. We should tackle making cigarettes illegal, and weight control mandatory before we tackle making not getting the flu shot illegal for adults.
The main preventable childhood illnesses against which we vaccinate are measles, mumps, rubella, hemophilus and varicella. In 2007 one individual died of rubella; none from mumps or measles, or congenital rubella syndrome. 10 from hemophilus and 6 from varicella. I assume some of these were children. CDC stats here. This is powerful testimony to how fabulously good vaccination is at preventing deaths and morbidity, and when that Grim Reaper rises again, most parents who thought their child was too precious to help bear the burden of herd immunity will suddenly realize they were a bit hasty in their anti-vaccination stance.
It’s best to use statistics that actually support a position lest those of us in favor of childhood vaccination be subject to an accusation of distortion from anti-vaxxers. The pro vaccination case is plenty good without that silly cite you put up there gumming up an assortment of concepts.
Wow.
First up. As a parent, let me just say, if I were to lose my kid, for whatever reason, let alone to something largely preventable, like measles, my reaction would *not * be “no problem, I’ll just make more.”
Second, you’re continuing to ignore the group of people listed by WhyNot who cannot be vaccinated due to age or medical reasons, or for whom the vaccination was not effective. They don’t fall into your two camps, and don’t deserve your flippant, Darwinian non-concern.
Third, as to whether this is a “disastrous” outbreak, CDC Measles Page. From virtual elimination in 2000, 2014 saw a huge spike in cases to 644 cases in 27 states. Most outbreaks in the U.S. are associated with unvaccinated people or communities. So from having no measles in this country 15 years ago, we’re allowing it re-emerge because we allow un-vaccinated people and communities. The fact that it’s been climbing over a 15 year period would also argue against the notion that people will get scared into common sense.
Yes, I do think there should be ramifications for refusing vaccinations that are required to maintain public health. If deaths are resulting, civil lawsuits seem too mild to me. Weren’t there criminal persecutions in cases where people knowingly had sex while they had AIDS? Not completely analogous, because the non-vaccinated aren’t infected yet. But if the risks are knowable, shouldn’t the consequences be greater than monetary?
In a civil suit the jury would only have to be convinced on the balance of probabilities. Unvaccinated Child gets measles, the four kids in WhyNot’s post above subsequently come down with measles, all four kids are in UC’s class and do not have any other shared experience … the jury draws the obvious conclusion.
Think class-action lawsuits for food poisoning. Same idea.
Couldnt this also apply to a kid with a common cold, flu, or even head lice who goes to school when they should have stayed home? How about a kid who doesnt wash their hands correctly and spreads ecoli? Do we really want to deal with a situation where everytime a kid gets someone else sick they get sued?
Once at my sons school about 3/4 the kids came down one day with a sudden illness characterized by stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea. The doctors said they thought it was likely food poisoning and since most kids ate the school food, that would be a likely common source. The district though sent in “experts” to analyze the school and totally sterilize it. Their conclusion - it was a retrovirus.
Now if it had been determined to be food poisoning, should all those parents been able to sue?
At our pediatricians they just require any sick kids coming in to put on a mask and sometimes wear gloves.
Um…yeah? If they could prove that the school was somehow negligent, why not?
I agree with you that there’s a slippery slope, though.
I think how society deals with drunk driving has some parallels with possible legal consequences of non-vaccination.
There is no excuse for drunk driving.
You drink, drive and get involved in an accident your ass is grass. It doesn’t matter if the best sober driver in the world would have still run over little Johnny. Because you shouldn’t have been drinking in the first place the law has no trouble making the assumption (even with good evidence to the contrary) that your guilty and liable because you were drinking.
I’d have no problem with the mindset that not being vaccinated carried the same sort of legal ramifications.
Anyone is able to sue for anything, and I’m sure some will try. Don’t think they’ll win.
For your examples there is no available vaccine and it’s probable that the spread of the contagion was done before the first sick kid was known to be sick. If we apply a “reasonable person” standard (I think that’s what the lawyers call it?), then a reasonably prudent person could do everything right and still spread the cold. A reasonable 4 year old forgets to wash his hands sometimes. So as long as there’s no clear negligence, then I don’t think you could convince a jury that a cold is worth an award. You can always try, but I don’t think you’ll win. That’s the thing about civil lawsuits: you don’t have to write a law about it covering every possibility. You get to talk directly to the judge or jury and present your case that this person done did you wrong.
If your story contains some actual negligence, like the school didn’t follow proper food handling or surface cleaning procedures, then you have a much better chance. So the question really is: are parents who don’t vaccinate being negligent? I think the tide of that standard is turning. 20 years ago, vaccination was seen as a straight up personal choice, not a matter of negligence. Today, we’re beginning to get people to understand herd immunity and the public impact of that “personal choice”. So you get 12 people on your jury who understand herd immunity because they’ve all seen stories about it on the nightly news lately, and your “reasonable person” suddenly has a different rubric, one that includes vaccination as reasonably prudent.