Should non-vaccinating parents be held liable for disease transmitted by their child?

[Johnny_L.A]

I found this article just now. It claims there have been zero measles deaths in the U.S. in the past ten years, and 108 deaths due to measles vaccines in the same period. I read this:

Conclusion: Measles Vaccine Enthusiasm based Largely on Fear and Beliefs

We fully realize that those who believe in the value of vaccines will probably not be persuaded by these facts, which anyone with a computer and Internet access can verify from U.S. Government sources.

Having now published a few stories on the measles issue, and having received many hundreds of comments, it has become very clear to us that those who have strong opinions on the measles vaccine are based more on fear and beliefs, than they are on facts or science. Any attempt by these vaccine proponents to force their beliefs on the rest of the U.S. public should be vigorously opposed.

I doubt the author sees the irony of his conclusion. Here, let me fix that for him:
Conclusion: Measles Vaccine Fears based Largely on Fear and Beliefs

We fully realize that those who believe in the danger of vaccines will probably not be persuaded by these facts, which anyone with a computer and Internet access can verify from U.S. Government sources.

Having now published a few stories on the measles issue, and having received many hundreds of comments, it has become very clear to us that those who have strong opinions on the measles vaccine are based more on fear and beliefs, than they are on facts or science. Any attempt by these vaccine opponents to force their beliefs on the rest of the U.S. public should be vigorously opposed.
I got this from picunurse. It’s an article that reproduces Roald Dahl’s 1988 letter concerning his experience with measles. The author of the article finishes with this:

Think about this: the anti-vaccine movement is telling you they would rather risk the death of their child rather than an unbelievable longshot - even in their own, non-scientifically supported view - of autism. Even those who believe that vaccines=autism acknowledge that in their fever dream of non-science that the impact is a small percentage. But that small percentage is so scary to them that their child’s death is OK to avoid the risk of autism. Talk about a stigma to put on those with autism.

There is a saying amongst Scientologists - yes, those kooky L Ron Hubbard followers - “If it isn’t the truth for you, it isn’t true for you.” This circular argument basically means: if you don’t believe it, no matter how many people tell you it is the truth, you have no reason to accept it.

But any parent who has read James and the Giant Peach, or any of Dahl’s other works can appreciate a man who lost his child due to an illness we can now prevent.

Fifteen years ago, measles was nearly wiped out in the U.S. From 1 January to 23 May, 2014 there were hundreds of cases.

Most of the 288 measles cases reported this year have been in persons who were unvaccinated (200 [69%]) or who had an unknown vaccination status (58 [20%]); 30 (10%) were in persons who were vaccinated. Among the 195 U.S. residents who had measles and were unvaccinated, 165 (85%) declined vaccination because of religious, philosophical, or personal objections, 11 (6%) were missed opportunities for vaccination, and 10 (5%) were too young to receive vaccination.

Ninety percent (89.6% to three sigfigs) of those cases were among unvaccinated people. Eighty-five percent of those 90% could be considered ‘anti-vaxxers’. Fourteen percent of the measles cases in the first half of 2014 occurred in people who were ‘unlucky’; either the vaccine was not effective in them, or they missed an opportunity, or they were too young. The more unvaccinated people there are, the more illness there will be. We can’t do anything about infants who are too young for the vaccine. Until we have a rational health care system, there’s not much we can do about ‘missed opportunities’. Even if we could vaccinate infants, and even if we could make up for ‘missed opportunities’, there will still be a small percentage of people in whom the vaccine will not ‘take’. There will be deaths. Anti-vaxxers are selfishly condemning others’ children to illness and possibly death because, as noted above, they would rather children die than risk a probably zero percent chance that their own children will become autistic.

These people are a danger to society just as, as has been pointed out, drunk driving is. The numbers are fewer, but the lack of responsibility is the same.

[Chief_Pedant]

@ddsun

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?

Look, I am all for vaccination. But let’s not get too frightened by our shadow. Your “huge” spike in measles depends on what units you put on the ordinate, right? Put 1,000 at the top of your graph and we need more funding for this crisis! More laws! But put the candidate pool of 40,000,000 children under 21 at the top and “huge” modifies “spike” but doesn’t mean “huge problem.”

I gave an earlier cite about vaccine preventable deaths in children with the wrong url. The correct one is here. From 2000 to 2007, there were 3 deaths among the 500+ cases of measles. Some of these may have been children. There are other morbidities. In pre-vax decades when measles was endemic, mortality was probably on the order of 1 in 1,000. So it’s a serious enough illness that you would have to be a complete jackass not to vaccinate if there is any real chance Baby Precious is going to be checking out early, or get a post-encephalitic state that leaves her worse off then Audrey Autism and Alex Aluminum.

Although a slow learner in many arenas, I am a remarkably insightful genius at what makes us tick psychologically. When a preventable illness has a painful enough morbidity and mortality, the Baby Precious dumbass parents will go get their vaccinations. The really stupid and paranoid will not. It isn’t worth struggling to correct stupid for anti-vaxxers.

In the meantime, you and yours can protect yourselves by getting vaccinated, on schedule. The vicarious concern for the unprotectable listed so sincerely by WhyNot above is noble, but in practice is a bit overblown. Truly defective immune systems have a lot more to fear than the current level of vaccine-preventable “huge spikes” in measles; a few percent of healthy vaccine recipients might need a booster, or might never develop immunity. Of those, some fraction might get exposed; of those, some fraction might die. It ends up being a pretty small number.

All of this figures into the calculation of whether or not anti-vax parents should be held liable for the disease transmitted by their children. I do not think the fundamental concern to a pro-vaccinating parent is large enough to try and tackle the complexities around how to sanction and enforce such liability.

For reasons related to human psychology that I mention above, I think the Baby Precious camp will cave, and the crisis will abate. Cries of appropriate horrible outrage will ensue when a pro-vax parent’s child is injured.

But at a public scale level, it’s a teeny tiny problem for pro-vaxxers as a whole, and that’s why my outrage is a bit more limited, particularly when you put the issue in focus against large-scale problems such as fat ass kids. Those kids can make a huge spike on the ordinate with 40,000,000 as the top number–to the tune of 10,000,000 plus.

So I keep my blood pressure down over anti-vaxxers without obsessing too much on how to make bonehead anti-vaxxers liable for their selfishness and stupidity.

[lisiate]

I was going to link to Roald Dahl’s letter too but Johnny L.A. beat me to it. It’s a very poignant description of what measles can do.

Interestingly when he wrote in 1988 measles seems to have been virtually eradicated in the US.

It is not yet generally accepted that measles can be a dangerous illness. Believe me, it is. In my opinion parents who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting the lives of those children at risk. In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.

[Urbanredneck]

@WhyNot

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.

I think they were following proper procedures. But mistakes happen when you serve thousands of meals. I dont think a lawsuit would have gone thru.

In any case the district pretty much shut down the case by having a professional crew go thru and sanitize every doorknob, table, water fountain, etc… and then spreading the idea of a retrovirus so to cover their asses.

[HowSoonIsThen]

@billfish678

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.

If I may stray a bit off topic, unless the laws are very different where you’re from I’m certain this isn’t true. Simply being drunk doesn’t automatically make you guilty if you kill someone. It has to be shown that it wouldn’t have happened if you weren’t drunk. If someone runs a red light and smashes into you, you’re being drunk doesn’t suddenly make you responsible.

And for the sake of saying something on topic, yes I believe parents should be held liable if they refuse to vaccinate their kids. As others have said, if they have a legitimate excuse (such as the kid not being able to be vaccinated) then that’s fair enough, but if it’s a case of “vaccines cause autism”… well, something needs to be done about that.

[SciFiSam]

@Chief_Pedant

Look, I am all for vaccination. But let’s not get too frightened by our shadow. Your “huge” spike in measles depends on what units you put on the ordinate, right? Put 1,000 at the top of your graph and we need more funding for this crisis! More laws! But put the candidate pool of 40,000,000 children under 21 at the top and “huge” modifies “spike” but doesn’t mean “huge problem.”

I gave an earlier cite about vaccine preventable deaths in children with the wrong url. The correct one is here. From 2000 to 2007, there were 3 deaths among the 500+ cases of measles. Some of these may have been children. There are other morbidities. In pre-vax decades when measles was endemic, mortality was probably on the order of 1 in 1,000. So it’s a serious enough illness that you would have to be a complete jackass not to vaccinate if there is any real chance Baby Precious is going to be checking out early, or get a post-encephalitic state that leaves her worse off then Audrey Autism and Alex Aluminum.

Although a slow learner in many arenas, I am a remarkably insightful genius at what makes us tick psychologically. When a preventable illness has a painful enough morbidity and mortality, the Baby Precious dumbass parents will go get their vaccinations. The really stupid and paranoid will not. It isn’t worth struggling to correct stupid for anti-vaxxers.

In the meantime, you and yours can protect yourselves by getting vaccinated, on schedule. The vicarious concern for the unprotectable listed so sincerely by WhyNot above is noble, but in practice is a bit overblown. Truly defective immune systems have a lot more to fear than the current level of vaccine-preventable “huge spikes” in measles; a few percent of healthy vaccine recipients might need a booster, or might never develop immunity. Of those, some fraction might get exposed; of those, some fraction might die. It ends up being a pretty small number.

All of this figures into the calculation of whether or not anti-vax parents should be held liable for the disease transmitted by their children. I do not think the fundamental concern to a pro-vaccinating parent is large enough to try and tackle the complexities around how to sanction and enforce such liability.

For reasons related to human psychology that I mention above, I think the Baby Precious camp will cave, and the crisis will abate. Cries of appropriate horrible outrage will ensue when a pro-vax parent’s child is injured.

But at a public scale level, it’s a teeny tiny problem for pro-vaxxers as a whole, and that’s why my outrage is a bit more limited, particularly when you put the issue in focus against large-scale problems such as fat ass kids. Those kids can make a huge spike on the ordinate with 40,000,000 as the top number–to the tune of 10,000,000 plus.

So I keep my blood pressure down over anti-vaxxers without obsessing too much on how to make bonehead anti-vaxxers liable for their selfishness and stupidity.

Are you really discounting people with compromised immune systems because they’re already ill so have more to worry about? That’s rather callous.

Having a compromised immune system doesn’t have to mean about to die anyway, you know. My immune system is compromised due to arthritis medication but my life expectancy is not much lower than normal, and lots of kids with leukemia survive. They then go to school while still on the immunocompromising drugs because you keep taking them for a long, long time after you’re out of hospital. And for things like colds it’s actually not a big deal; it’s only the more serious viruses, like measles, that are a concern.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Johnny_L.A

I found this article just now. It claims there have been zero measles deaths in the U.S. in the past ten years, and 108 deaths due to measles vaccines in the same period. I read this:

Yeah, funny how there are no deaths from Measles when the fucking vaccine removes the chances of people getting it. Meanwhile the last time we had a serious outbreak in the late 80’s, 120 people died over 3 years.

Also the 108 deaths is from the VAERS database, and that is bullshit data to depend on.

[davidm]

@suranyi

I agree with this, in theory. I’m just not sure it would be so easy to prove that one particular child was the source of the outbreak, in a courtroom. I can just see the defense attorney’s argument to the jury: “How do you know there wasn’t another child with measles in the vicinity?”

Genetics. Strains vary. If you can show that the infections are genetically identical and that the child was exposed to another child with the same strain, then the odds are very good that that is where the infection came from.

[davidm]

And now we have a governor calling for “balance”. Granted, he’s walked it back somewhat, but these kinds of political games, pandering to anti-vaxxers, are unforgivable. He’s trying to have it both ways by making ambiguous statements. How long before we hear politicians using the “I’m not a scientist” line when asked about vaccination?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/02/christie-says-parents-should-have-choice-on-vaccinations/?_r=0

Mr. Christie, when asked about the connection between the new measles cases and parents who object to the long-recommended vaccine against it, said that he and his wife had vaccinated their four children. He called that “the best expression I can give you of my opinion.”

But he added: “It’s more important what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

Mr. Christie said that “not every vaccine is created equal, and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.”

[DrDeth]

@Chief_Pedant

It does not make sense to me to mandate vaccinations, nor to hold parents accountable for selfish beliefs. There is a slope there that is slippery.

If you want to protect your children, vaccinate them. At some point the anti-vaxxers will figure it out.

No sorry, they endanger other kids too.

No, they wont. They are not rational.

[Chief_Pedant]

@DrDeth

No sorry, they endanger other kids too.

No, they wont. They are not rational.

I will be observing with interest the outcome of this particular “you have fecklessly endangered MY child!” cause du jour.

I am particularly fascinated at what ideas come up with to enforce vaccination upon the witless, the frightened, and the narcissistic. Given my vast insight into the paranoid and stupid, I predict any approach taken will have the unintended consequence of worsening the problem by increasing recalcitration against gubmint edicts since legislative coercion is obviously a sign the end times are upon us.

As to the slippery slope, next up for proscription: Bicycle riding. It not only endangers the rider, but pedestrians they run into. And handicapped pedestrians and children who cannot get out of the way–the weakest among us!–are in the most danger.

[davidm]

Right. Bicycles. That’s exactly equivalent. Every person who’s hit by a bicycle will then hit 3 or 4 others, it will grow exponentially, and before you know it we’ll have an epidemic of bicycle injuries.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Chief_Pedant

As to the slippery slope, next up for proscription: Bicycle riding. It not only endangers the rider, but pedestrians they run into. And handicapped pedestrians and children who cannot get out of the way–the weakest among us!–are in the most danger.

What, exactly, is slippery about this slope? Bicycle riders are liable to those they injure in collisions. I’m not sure what position you take on that, but I’m pretty okay with it.

[Jackmannii]

@Chief_Pedant

the witless, the frightened, and the narcissistic

I am so looking forward to this movie (reputedly starring Harry Belafonte, Adam Sandler and the entire Kardashian family).

[WhyNot]

@Chief_Pedant

If you want to protect your children, vaccinate them. At some point the anti-vaxxers will figure it out.

No, they really won’t. Or not enough of them. The latest one I’ve seen (which I’m sure is an oldie but a goodie, but the first time I’ve seen it) is that it’s the vaccine gives people the measles, and that vaccinated breastfeeding moms and vaccinated kids are spreading measles, because of all of that untidy viral shedding they’re doing post-vaccination. And the measles vaccine has mutated anyway, so the outbreaks are now caused by the strains in the vaccine, not wild strains.

There is literally no end to the mental gymnastics some people will go through to avoid admitting they are wrong.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I will be observing with interest the outcome of this particular “you have fecklessly endangered MY child!” cause du jour.

I am particularly fascinated at what ideas come up with to enforce vaccination upon the witless, the frightened, and the narcissistic. Given my vast insight into the paranoid and stupid, I predict any approach taken will have the unintended consequence of worsening the problem by increasing recalcitration against gubmint edicts since legislative coercion is obviously a sign the end times are upon us.

Always late to the celebrations. Many [del]gubmint[/del] states already enforce common sense ideas, and I doubt if you have any interest as you ignored the Forbes article.

Besides the Forbes report on using the law there are already examples of what it has been done in places in America, in New York the anti-vaxers attempted to use the law, only to show how ignorant they were of the precedents against them.

NY federal court hands triple loss to anti-vaccination ideology

Two sets of parents whose children had religious exemptions sued New York City and the state in federal court when their children were temporarily excluded from school under the policy, in some cases for up to a month. In other words, they were demanding that their unvaccinated children be allowed to attend even though there was an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease at the school.

Last week, a federal judge dismissed all three cases (they had been consolidated and assigned to one judge) in an opinion holding that neither the students’ nor the parents’ constitutional rights were violated, including their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

The New York Times provided some interesting stats as background for its story on the lawsuits. New York City schools granted 3,535 religious exemptions in 2012-13. Public and private schools in the city have an overall immunization rate of around 97 percent, but 37 private schools were below 70 percent. According to Daniel Salmon, deputy director at the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the rate of immunization necessary to maintain herd immunity for measles, which is highly contagious, is 95%.

No new legal ground was broken here. The court simply relied on well-established U.S. Supreme Court and appellate court precedent, including the 1905 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. It took the court less than 6 pages to dismiss the constitutional claims in their entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (State law claims were dismissed as well, on jurisdictional grounds.) This means that, even accepting everything the plaintiffs said in their complaints as true, the plaintiffs cannot win. Metaphorically, they didn’t even make it to first base. They struck out entirely.

In fact, the case is interesting for being so uninteresting legally. We are so accustomed to hearing overwrought declarations of “parental rights” to make “informed choices” that we might forget just how solid the constitutional precedent is in upholding a state’s authority to require vaccination against disease to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. States are not constitutionally required to allow non-medical exemptions at all. (Mississippi and West Virginia permit only medical, but not religious or philosophical, exemptions.)

That the court was able to so handily reject these claims is a testament to just how well-settled the law is in this area. It is also a demonstration of why anti-vaccination and other “parental rights” activists would love to haul Jacobson before the U.S. Supreme Court and argue that it should be overturned, or at least modified. The case (and its progeny, such as Prince v. Massachusetts) has served for over a century as a brake on parents who attempt to impose their religious and “philosophical” belief system at the risk of their children’s (and your) health. The case is an inconvenient barrier between them and their ideological goals.

The point of the Forbes article is that there is enough precedent, and if there is enough evidence, it is time to use the law more actively against the ones that willfully are risking not only the health of their families, but also the health of others.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

Four confirmed cases in Toronto now.

I suspect Ontario’s Health Minister may come to regret his position on unvaccinated children and schools.

In comments made to the Empire Club of Canada about Ontario’s Action Plan for Health Care, the province’s Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins, suggested that parents who don’t get the measles vaccines for their kids are endangering others.

But Hoskins, who studied measles immunization among children for his PhD, also said he wouldn’t move to ban unvaccinated children from school.

As for anti-vaxxer parents being held liable, I am of the opinion that they could and should be under both civil and criminal law. Regardless of Chief Pedant’s claim, there is no slippery slope to found on this issue. Parents who refuse to vaccinate children who are medically able to be vaccinated are wilfully ignoring the possible consequences of their choice; serious illness and/or death of both their own children and the children of others.

[Jackmannii]

@SciFiSam

Are you really discounting people with compromised immune systems because they’re already ill so have more to worry about? That’s rather callous.

Chief Pedant is not in the same league, or even on the same planet of callous with the Drs. Wolfson (a husband and wife team in Arizona; he’s a stridently antivax “paleocardiologist”; his wife Heather (a chiropractor) is even more vociferous on the subject).

Here’s what Heather Wolfson had to say about the mother of a child who died of chickenpox (the mom’s crime was urging other parents to get their children vaccinated):

*"Where do I begin?!! I can go on forever about it. First of all, the little girl was born without a spleen therefore she was immunocompromised since birth. The lack of this vital organ was probably caused by some drug the mother took while pregnant!.. Maybe the mother got an extra five years of life from her daughter by not participating in vaccine schedule folly…

Secondly, the mother probably gave fever reducers such as Tylenol. This depletes glutathione and is a sure fire way to allow your child to succumb to such a benign childhood illness. In this country, one in 30,000 of those with chicken pox died every year, for a grand total of 100 per annum. Those were usually adults. Please don’t pass a law forcing us to vaccinate and inject chemicals into our children because 100 people died per year. What was the health status of those 100 prior to chicken pox? Probably not good. Your healthy, breast fed, organic child will not suffer the same fate.

If this mother would have sought out chiropractic care, gave just two simple vitamins A and C, she would have never developed pneumonia. Also, mom fed her garbage food and exposed her to thousands of chemicals. This little girl is dead, not from chicken pox, but from chemicals and poor nutrition…

The mother is ignorant, uneducated, and a danger to all other parents and children. She should spend her time learning how the human body works instead of spreading her deadly advice to the rest of the world."*

Oddly enough, this rant has been removed from the Wolfson Cardiology website (although it’s preserved elsewhere on the Internet in all its flamingly sleazy glory for posterity). Meantime, Jack Wolfson has gone on record attacking the parent of a 3-year-old girl, Maggie Jacks who’s received chemotherapy for leukemia (and thus is immunosuppressed) for being concerned about the possibility of the child contracting measles. Wolfson says his own (unvaccinated) child is “pure”, others are not his responsibility, and that it’s very likely the Jacks child got leukemia from vaccinations.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Antivaccine cardiologist Jack Wolfson and the resurrection of false balance...

[Chief_Pedant]

@WhyNot

No, they really won’t. Or not enough of them. The latest one I’ve seen (which I’m sure is an oldie but a goodie, but the first time I’ve seen it) is that it’s the vaccine gives people the measles, and that vaccinated breastfeeding moms and vaccinated kids are spreading measles, because of all of that untidy viral shedding they’re doing post-vaccination. And the measles vaccine has mutated anyway, so the outbreaks are now caused by the strains in the vaccine, not wild strains.

There is literally no end to the mental gymnastics some people will go through to avoid admitting they are wrong.

I do not think the stupid will figure it out. Read my post above.

I think the parents of Baby Precious will figure it out, if an epidemic begins to cause real harm (i.e. large enough for us to start seeing on scale some of the measles complications).

I suspect quite a few anti-vaxxers make the following calculation: If everyone but me vaccinates Baby Ordinary, then I get freedom from these illnesses at absolutely no cost to Baby Precious. Hmmm…I just found a religious tenet; a gelatin allergy; something that gets my exception signed.

Those are the ones that will cave.

They truly stupid cannot be fixed. But truly mandating vaccination won’t work with either crowd.

I await the plan that shows me I’m wrong.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

Always late to the celebrations. Many [del]gubmint[/del] states already enforce common sense ideas, and I doubt if you have any interest as you ignored the Forbes article.

I am not inclined to debate points with you, as I have some kind of mental deficiency that makes me unable to understand much of what you have to say.

For that I apologize.

But I am delighted to see you using Forbes for a cite. For some reason I thought you had a skeptical opinion of its content.