How many doctors are against vaccinations? So it is not a medical decision - it is a patient ignoring the advice of a doctor. And for the most part it is not the adult who is the victim - it is the child not being vaccinated who is the victim, as well as those for whom the vaccine may not be effective getting infected because of the negligence of the parents.
In any case this thread is about suing, not forcing. Do you support the concept that parents are allowed to keep vaccines from their kids, but if their kids get infected and injure someone else have to pay for their stupidity?
No. African villagers havent heard the opinions of quacky white doctors. Sorry, this isnt a bad 1930’s film. Unless you have some evidence otherwise. Africans have ni problems creating their own conspiracy theories.
That is probably refering to my post (quarantining everybody who doesn’t want to be vaccinated). I wasn’t seriously proposing that, though.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why parents are allowed to deny vacccinations to their children when the risk/benefit calculation is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccination.
An epidemic is like a nuclear chain reaction - what’s important is whether the population is subcritical (on average, each infected individual infects less than one new person) or supercritical (on average, each infected individual infects more than one new person). To drive a disease to extinction, all you need to do is reduce the transmission rate below 1.00 - vaccination doesn’t need to reduce the transmission rate to zero to be 100% effective in the long run.
No, he wouldn’t. The first Amendment does not protect any and all actions taken in the name of religion. It only says you can’t persecute religions for being religions.
To use the same example as last time, murdering people and cutting out their hearts is illegal. Murdering people and cutting out their hearts because you worship Huitzilopochtli is still illegal.
To sue, the plaintiff would have to prove that the virus cane specifically from the individual being sued. No court would allow a shotgun lawsuit that named random nonvaxes. How to prove that the virus that infected the plaintiff came from the defendant?
This is not a case of bodily integrity. This is about people wanting the right to decide what happens to the body of another person. The person is someone who is too young to make the decision for themselves, but that doesn’t make this about bodily integrity. Someone is going to make the decision for the other, young person: it’s either a parent, or it’s the state.
This is not an argument for the state making that decision, but it was bothering me.
Regarding the OP: I’d rather see the people spreading lies and wrong medical information being sued. Perhaps if someone is infected by an unvaccinated child, you could check their parent’s internet history, and the books they bought, and interview them about what they believe and then go after the people who spread the false medical information?
To correct what was claimed earlier: smallpox was wiped out with the help of mandatory immunization (it was the first mandatory vaccine in the U.S., dating back to 1809 in Massachusetts). And mandatory polio vaccination was responsible for eradicating this disease in the United States.
I think saying “I’m for vaccination, but not government-mandated vaccination” is like saying “I’m for civil rights, but not government-mandated civil rights”. Neither objective works out very well without legal requirements (which in the case of immunization, include exemptions for health and other reasons).
People who talk about “coercion” also need to realize that there is a threshold for effective protection of the population (look up “herd immunity”) that is very difficult to achieve once you allow people to dodge vaccination as they please. We have been fortunate not to experience outbreaks on the scale seen in parts of Britain where childhood immunizations are not required.
Libertarians seem to want it both ways - no government-mandated “assaults” on their bodies, but freedom to assault others with preventable diseases without repercussions. Again, I don’t think it’ll be very effective strategy to sue parents in most instances, but facilities that don’t follow recommended practices for immunization and exemptions? Sue some sense into them.
So, to the anti-compulsory vaccination folks…there’s no such thing as a public health issue? STDs are different, because they can’t be spread through casual contact (i.e., airborne). Abortion is different because you can’t CATCH an abortion from someone else. The interest is in preventing epidemics by maintaining herd immunity. If you’re not going to enforce that herd immunity for the greater public health of the city/state/country, then you may as well not have it, especially when the woo-woo people are lying about the dangers of immunization.
Hell, in the US parents are allowed to deny their children ALL medical care as long as they say it’s because of their religion. Some have been prosecuted when the child died, but certainly not all.
Sure, but then you get into priorities.
Far more people are injured by smoking, for example. Or obesity.
There are many, many, many issues which could be discussed under the rubric of “for the public good”.
But when it comes to forcing invasive and risky(*) procedures on people, wisdom suggests that’s a bad idea.
(*) risk from vaccination is very small. But not zero.
Well, we don’t have police stationed outside the door of every home in America to ensure that children get medical care. Other than that, I’m not sure how you would pro-actively know if parents are giving children, especially children who don’t attend school, medical care.
This is not peculiar to the US-- it’s peculiar to a free society.