My feelings on parents refusing to vaccinate their kids

[CriticalThought]

I feel that parents should absolutely have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids but if their kids contract a disease that could have been avoided by vaccination then the parents should be held criminally negligent. I also think that if as a result of their choice other vulnerable people in the population contract the disease then the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs.

You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

 

[Declan]

I feel that parents should absolutely have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids but if their kids contract a disease that could have been avoided by vaccination then the parents should be held criminally negligent. I also think that if as a result of their choice other vulnerable people in the population contract the disease then the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs.

You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

Why would they be liable and not the person who gave the disease to their child. Why are those children less a victim than another child who gave it to them? How are you going to prove that their child gave your child the mumps and both of your children were not victims of a third child or Typhoid Mary in the cafeteria?

 

[TeleKat]

I think it's a dangerous route to allow the government to forcibly inject us with whatever they wish, but at the same point it's an equally dangerous route to allow people to endanger others due to their own negligence. The OP serves as a fair compromise IMO. Do what you want, but be prepared to face the potential consequences.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I feel that parents should absolutely have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids but if their kids contract a disease that could have been avoided by vaccination then the parents should be held criminally negligent. I also think that if as a result of their choice other vulnerable people in the population contract the disease then the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs.

You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

I agree with the first point - criminally negligent regarding the impact they had on their OWN child. [but what does that mean? It seems like an empty threat. What - they're going ot take away the kids? No - I think it would stand to reason that they're no longer able to make decisions RE immunization and should be required to bring their child in]

But not responsible for 'everyone' - that's just a bit too much. Aside that, if their child caught it - then that means someone else HAD it. So that one child/parent isn't necessarily the 'source of all cases of it'.

 

[UtahBill]

I feel that parents should absolutely have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids but if their kids contract a disease that could have been avoided by vaccination then the parents should be held criminally negligent. I also think that if as a result of their choice other vulnerable people in the population contract the disease then the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs.

You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

and their health care insurance should refuse to pay.....

 

[Paschendale]

I feel that parents should absolutely have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids but if their kids contract a disease that could have been avoided by vaccination then the parents should be held criminally negligent. I also think that if as a result of their choice other vulnerable people in the population contract the disease then the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs.

You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

If you face criminal penalties for doing something then you don't really have the right to do it.

 

[TeleKat]

Why would they be liable and not the person who gave the disease to their child. Why are those children less a victim than another child who gave it to them? How are you going to prove that their child gave your child the mumps and both of your children were not victims of a third child or Typhoid Mary in the cafeteria?

Because their child would not have contracted the disease to the level they did if they had received proper medical protections, i.e vaccinations.

 

[Thrilla]

and their health care insurance should refuse to pay.....

why should a health insurance company refuse to pay for treatment?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If you face criminal penalties for doing something then you don't really have the right to do it.

How so?

You have the right to engage in a variety of activities - but aren't seen negatively unless you harm someone else in the process. Driving a car is good and well, just don't hit anyone - etc.

 

[joG]

I feel that parents should absolutely have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids but if their kids contract a disease that could have been avoided by vaccination then the parents should be held criminally negligent. I also think that if as a result of their choice other vulnerable people in the population contract the disease then the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs.

You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

It ism't criminal. It is taking aa different risk profile. Or would you hold they were criminally negligent, if the vaccination killed the kid? That can happen, you know?

 

[joG]

How so?

You have the right to engage in a variety of activities - but aren't seen negatively unless you harm someone else in the process. Driving a car is good and well, just don't hit anyone - etc.

But do you put the parents in jail for putting their children in harm's way by vaccinating them, if they die`?

 

[Declan]

Because their child would not have contracted the disease to the level they did if they had received proper medical protections, i.e vaccinations.

Doesn't answer a single one of my questions. Why would their child be any less a victim than say your child?

 

[CanadaJohn]

and their health care insurance should refuse to pay.....

Indeed.

And lets broaden the noose:

Smokers who get cancer - no health care for you
Fat people who eat fries - no health care for you
People who participate in risky sports and/or activities - no health care for you
People who get STDs - no health care for you

The puritans are making a comeback, I see.

 

[Paxaeon]

......the parents should be civilly liable for the pain and suffering and any health costs. You should be free to practice your beliefs but you should also be held accountable for the consequences of acting on those beliefs to the endangerment of your own children and community.

`
Unfortunately, that will not work. Most of these diseases have incubation periods, polio for example is 7 to 14 days before the disease manifests itself...by that time, it's too late. If your lucky, your child may suffer only permanent paralysis of the spine or appendages. In extremis; Death.

No amount of money can compensate that child or family for what will happen. The same holds true to any of the diseases that can be prevented by vaccinations. If lack of vaccinations turns into a epidemic or pandemic, laws and lawsuits will be useless. Prevention, legally mandated, is the only viable solution to this.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Indeed.

And lets broaden the noose:

Smokers who get cancer - no health care for you
Fat people who eat fries - no health care for you
People who participate in risky sports and/or activities - no health care for you
People who get STDs - no health care for you

The puritans are making a comeback, I see.

We can end every problem this way!

Teens who get pregnant.....no health care for them will end that for sure.

Alcoholics and drug addicts have co-morbidities and fall down a lot, they made that choice so they live with it....and then there are those dregs on society, the colesterol criminals who are walking heart attacks from eating fast food. Ban them from health care.

This is the path to the new utopia and a super race!

 

[Declan]

Indeed.

And lets broaden the noose:

Smokers who get cancer - no health care for you
Fat people who eat fries - no health care for you
People who participate in risky sports and/or activities - no health care for you
People who get STDs - no health care for you

The puritans are making a comeback, I see.

It is you filthy foreigners bringing your filthy germs into our pristine nation that is the problem, dontcha know. Keep your comedians and Justin Biebers on your side of the border and we wouldn't be having this problem. Canada should have to pay for these outbreaks. It is germ warfare. :2razz:

 

[CanadaJohn]

It is you filthy foreigners bringing your filthy germs into our pristine nation that is the problem, dontcha know. Keep your comedians and Justin Biebers on your side of the border and we wouldn't be having this problem. Canada should have to pay for these outbreaks. It is germ warfare. :2razz:

Little Justin Biebs got infected by American hedonism while visiting your fair country. But no fear, he's told his fans and Ellen Degenerous that he's in rehab for his affliction and he's going back to being a good, polite, Canadian boy from now on. No more succumbing to American wickedness for our Biebs, no sir.

 

[CriticalThought]

`
Unfortunately, that will not work. Most of these diseases have incubation periods, polio for example is 7 to 14 days before the disease manifests itself...by that time, it's too late. If your lucky, your child may suffer only permanent paralysis of the spine or appendages. In extremis; Death.

No amount of money can compensate that child or family for what will happen. The same holds true to any of the diseases that can be prevented by vaccinations. If lack of vaccinations turns into a epidemic or pandemic, laws and lawsuits will be useless. Prevention, legally mandated, is the only viable solution to this.

I think enough people go to prison or lose their livliehood and the anti vaccination movement will die out. What can they argue?

 

[CriticalThought]

Why would they be liable and not the person who gave the disease to their child. Why are those children less a victim than another child who gave it to them? How are you going to prove that their child gave your child the mumps and both of your children were not victims of a third child or Typhoid Mary in the cafeteria?

The parents of whatever child who originally passed on the disease should be liable. As for proof, that will not be too difficult to ascertain.

 

[CriticalThought]

It ism't criminal. It is taking aa different risk profile. Or would you hold they were criminally negligent, if the vaccination killed the kid? That can happen, you know?

I am arguing it should be criminal. Driving on the wrong side of the road is a "different risk profile." That does not mean it is not reckless and negligent and that I should not be held accountable for whatever happens.

 

[joG]

I am arguing it should be criminal. Driving on the wrong side of the road is a "different risk profile." That does not mean it is not reckless and negligent and that I should not be held accountable for whatever happens.

I do not have a problem having vaccinations. I do have one with forcing people to do things that reduce risks only minimally. What is the risk of dying of measles? How bad can be the reaction to the vaccine of various immunizations? Or how high is the rick of infection from visiting the hospital for the shots? How do the risks compare? Do you know? I would want to see much more information.

And even then a conscientious objector should be forced against his religious beliefs by the government? If you want that done, change the constitution.

 

[Declan]

Little Justin Biebs got infected by American hedonism while visiting your fair country. But no fear, he's told his fans and Ellen Degenerous that he's in rehab for his affliction and he's going back to being a good, polite, Canadian boy from now on. No more succumbing to American wickedness for our Biebs, no sir.

In other words, as soon as his career starts nose diving, we can expect to see the nude photos "hacked from his phone" showing up on the internet.

 

[Declan]

The parents of whatever child who originally passed on the disease should be liable. As for proof, that will not be too difficult to ascertain.

Good luck with "not too difficult". When 80 kids all get measles, determining who is the vector and who is the victim should be a piece of cake.

 

[UtahBill]

why should a health insurance company refuse to pay for treatment?

If you are an insurance company and your clients are engaging in dangerous activities, they can refuse coverage for the results of those activities, or drop the policy completely. It isn't much different than a criminal insisting that the company pay for treatment as a result of committing a crime.

 

[UtahBill]

Indeed.

And lets broaden the noose:

Smokers who get cancer - no health care for you
Fat people who eat fries - no health care for you
People who participate in risky sports and/or activities - no health care for you
People who get STDs - no health care for you

The puritans are making a comeback, I see.

you are a conservative? I didn't say no health care, just no coverage from your insurance company for treatment of situations caused by your own actions..... If you want to engage in unhealthy practices, you can pay out of your own pocket.
I just applied for an umbrella policy to cover whatever isn't covered by auto and home insurances. You should see the list of questions they asked. If I don't fit their qualifications, they won't insure me...