cartersmom
29-01-09, 08:16 AM
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/index-fi.htm
I don't think that vaxes are mandated in NZ and Australia like they are here in the US, but this is ridiculous.
There are those who actually believe that if a vaccinated child falls ill, the parenst of the unvaccinated children ahould be held liable for infecting the vaccinated child!!!
Since the 1990s, parents have increasingly used these personal belief exemptions, often related to an unproven belief that vaccines are linked to autism and other disorders. An outbreak of the disease can sicken not only children who are unvaccinated, but also children who have received the vaccine. While in the past, unvaccinated children were more likely to be low-income, increasingly more are higher-income and their parents well-educated. With the increased risk that the use of personal belief exemptions will limit the effectiveness of vaccination, this symposium addresses whether parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be liable in tort to individuals who are infected and injured by the unvaccinated children.
Douglas S. Diekema, Seattle Children’s Hospital
A parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. Should an individual harmed by an infection transmitted from a child whose parents chose to forgo vaccination have a negligence claim against those parents? While I do not hold a legal degree and therefore cannot speak directly to issues of law, as a physician and ethicist it seems to me that the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination.http://www.michiganlawreview.org/images/fi/more.gif (http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/diekema.htm)
There are many responses. Dr. Jay Gordon weighs in as well.
I don't think that vaxes are mandated in NZ and Australia like they are here in the US, but this is ridiculous.
There are those who actually believe that if a vaccinated child falls ill, the parenst of the unvaccinated children ahould be held liable for infecting the vaccinated child!!!
Since the 1990s, parents have increasingly used these personal belief exemptions, often related to an unproven belief that vaccines are linked to autism and other disorders. An outbreak of the disease can sicken not only children who are unvaccinated, but also children who have received the vaccine. While in the past, unvaccinated children were more likely to be low-income, increasingly more are higher-income and their parents well-educated. With the increased risk that the use of personal belief exemptions will limit the effectiveness of vaccination, this symposium addresses whether parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be liable in tort to individuals who are infected and injured by the unvaccinated children.
Douglas S. Diekema, Seattle Children’s Hospital
A parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. Should an individual harmed by an infection transmitted from a child whose parents chose to forgo vaccination have a negligence claim against those parents? While I do not hold a legal degree and therefore cannot speak directly to issues of law, as a physician and ethicist it seems to me that the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination.http://www.michiganlawreview.org/images/fi/more.gif (http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/diekema.htm)
There are many responses. Dr. Jay Gordon weighs in as well.