6 ms·
Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability
- gwgarry 13y agoDiversity is good. A few children who are not vaccinated is probably in the best interest of humanity. Imagine at some point in the future a vaccine does cause genetic problems, what then? Do you want to risk 100% of the population on that?
- krapp 13y agoHow much of the population do you want to risk on a comeback by whooping cough or polio or smallpox?
- gwgarry 13y agoYou can/have to put the kids that don't have vaccines under a special surveillance and work around the issue. Should society subsidize those costs? Perhaps.
- krapp 13y agoFor their entire lives, though? The potential damage of a viral pandemic is well documented and well known while the damage from vaccination seems, to say the least, controversial. I'm aware of one study linking vaccinations to autism having been debunked as a hoax, for instance[1]. [1]http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/vaccine-autism-connection-debunked-again/ http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/vaccine-autism-conn...
- pyre 13y ago| damage from vaccination seems, to say the | least, controversial Vaccines aren't 100% side-effect free. Combine the fact that the government shields manufacturers from liability for vaccines, and the fact that no one cares to collect statistics on side-effects from the vaccines, it's clear that no one wants to really evaluate the risks objectively. Presumably the side-effects are out-weighed by the benefits, but is there data to back this up? Not really.
- hga 13y agoOur government does this shielding because otherwise our legal system is so crazy no company would be selling vaccines in the US. the fact that no one cares to collect statistics on side-effects from the vaccines Doesn't the existence of a fund to cover those with really bad side effects suggest that we actually do have those statistics? They're certainly collected during FDA mandated testing, which is particularly extensive for vaccines because the tradeoffs are so stark, you're giving them to an generically healthy population, it's not a "take an antibiotic or die" kind of thing.
- pyre 13y ago| FDA mandated testing, which is particularly | extensive for vaccines Is that really the case for the flu vaccines that they have to make 'on the fly' specific to each flu season and the new strains out there? What about the other vaccines mentioned here, where children get 3 or 4 vaccines at once by convention? How do you know which ones are causing adverse reactions?
- hga 13y agoYes, because the vaccines are the same year to year except for the precise seed strains used (and those are developed by specialists who provide some degree of regularity), which provide the precise sequences of amino acids that make up the two relevant viral proteins. Otherwise they're as identical as possible, the least reasonable amount of chicken "stuff" left in, the preservatives used, etc. And I'm pretty sure there is some testing done before new batches are tried out on the whole population. As for "how do you know which ones are causing adverse reactions", why do we care? I would assume if they're bad enough the child isn't given any more, so which causes what is irrelevant (remember, we know this is going to happen, these vaccines are licensed with that understanding). If less severe, I'm sure there are protocols to address this so the child can get further vaccinations with reasonable safety (e.g. you can test with a very small amount to see if one causes a reactions ... and, hmmm, that should do for the severe reactions as well).
- krapp 13y ago
- hga 13y agoYou and others are ignoring those who's vaccinations don't "take", they silently don't result in a sufficient immune system response for whatever reasons. Herd immunity is the only thing protecting them since don't know ahead of time who they are (those who you know aren't protected can e.g. get a gamma globulin shot if exposure is suspected).
- GuiA 13y agohttp://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro
- breadbox 13y agoThere will always be a few unvaccinated children; some kids can't get vaccinated due to other issues. We don't need more people voluntarily exposing their own children to needless risk.
- gwgarry 13y agoI think there has to be a level of tolerance which is justifiable by science and working around the issue by other means -- for instance only so many kids without a certain vaccine can be in the same peer group. Else you are a totalitarian and we've seen that this type of thinking produces problems.
- breadbox 13y agoDon't get me wrong -- I'm not certain I'm comfortable with the idea of forcing parents to vaccinate their children either. There are serious issues with personal autonomy there. But please, please let's not fool ourselves with lies about how it might be for the best. That direction lies nothing but FUD and pseudoscience. The question is whether or not parents should be have the right to put their children at risk because they disagree with reality.
- ubernostrum 13y agoGovernment-enforced mandatory vaccination is what really made inroads into smallpox, a disease which is now eradicated. Respecting the "diversity" of opinions on the issue would have achieved the opposite.
- jlgreco 13y agoThat level of tolerance has traditionally been given, but it has recently begun to be abused. A few fringe religious nuts who want to abstain from modern medicine are fine; they don't threaten herd immunity. However as soon as not vaccinating your children becomes the trendy thing for young parents to do, it can become necessary to take a hardline stance in order to protect those who do not have the luxury of choosing to be vaccinated.
- DanBC 13y agoIt feels like a reasonable idea. You're not going to get much money. Perhaps you should go after the people promoting the anti-vaccine stance instead? Measles outbreaks are happening in a few places: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-22221704 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-22221704) (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/diseases/immmea.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/diseases/immmea.shtml) Some nurseries in some countries prohibit children that don't have vaccination certificates. That seems reasonable - you can chose which nursery to send your child to. Andrew Wakefield is a crook. In my opinion he should have paid a huge fine. (http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html)
- dmillett 13y agoVaccines usually don't cause problems, but when they do it is very hard to get those statistics collected. I do have a coworker who lost her hearing due to a bad vaccine. My daughter did have a minor side effect from the measle/chicken pox vaccine. The side typical side effects from each of those vaccines are similar, but since it was a combination vaccine, I'll never know which one/both my daughter had a reaction to. The pediatricians did not care and said it's hard to get the CDC to collect feedback like this. I would argue for singular vaccines and blood test for pre-disposed reactions. In my opinion it's hard to push good science to the medical community, so approaches like this seem to go nowhere.
- markdown 13y ago> My daughter did have a minor side effect from the measle/chicken pox vaccine. The side typical side effects from each of those vaccines are similar, but since it was a combination vaccine, I'll never know which one/both my daughter had a reaction to. Isn't this expected?
- lignuist 13y agoThis is only acceptable, if vaccinations itself are guaranteed to be 100% safe. Of course then someone should be liable for any damage caused by vaccination.
- jlgreco 13y agoNothing is guaranteed to be 100% safe. I can however guarantee you that a population losing herd immunity will put more lives at risk. Can those who abstain from vaccines be held liable when those who actually cannot get vaccinated fall ill? That seems like a fair compromise; tax anyone who chooses not to vaccinate and use the proceeds to help those who are harmed by their decision. We wouldn't be jailing them, merely holding them accountable for their actions. Throwing salt onto the icy sidewalk in front of your business can be dangerous, but if you don't do it and somebody gets hurt, you can be sued.
- lignuist 13y agoIf safeness cannot be guaranteed, then noone should be forced. Arguing with statistics over a population surely must sound cynical to those who have been negatively affected by vaccination: "Sorry, you're one of the rare people we ignored while forcing everyone to take the medicine which is known to cause problems for 0.00001% of people." Also, vaccination does not guarantee, that I cannot be an agent of the germ, even if I am imune myself.
- jlgreco 13y agoNobody is being forced to vaccinate under this proposal. They are only being opened up for liability if they choose not to vaccinate. If you want to endanger your child and others, then fine; just don't expect there to be no consequences. NOBODY is claiming that immunization is a guarantee; I don't know where you are getting that nonsense from.
- lignuist 13y agoTaxing is a way of enforcement, as well as telling people that they can get sued. Also, I never asked for the guarantee of immunization, but for guaranteed safety of vaccination. For example I know a child that lost ability to speak due to bad vaccination. Since it doesn't live in the US, it will never get compensation from a fund.
- viraptor 13y agoTyphoid Mary got quarantined against her will for spreading the disease, so this idea is quite similar (but not as extreme). Basically if you're harming others you're liable. There's an interesting text on old cases of healthy carriers at http://cythereabast.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/the-board-of-healths-exile-of-mary-mallon-was-it-justifiable/ http://cythereabast.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/the-board-of-he...
- jlgreco 13y agoTyphoid Mary is a great example. You can quibble over the investigative technique and how they perhaps did not treat her with compassion but the fact is that she was killing people and imprisoning her was the only way to spare others. (Thankfully imprisoning is not necessarily in this case.)
- tassl 13y agoI am not going to argue against vaccination (which seems to be the target of a lot of conspiration theories), but I am really interested on where are the limits of this logic: are we going to "use" only vaccination or any factor that might/could increase the chances of getting somebody else sick?
- fleitz 13y agoSince vaccines are not 100% effective why would it incur liability? You can't prove that the person wouldn't have gotten sick with the vaccine. People should have the right to refuse medical treatment. Can we sue the FDA for with holding treatments that may have prevented death?
- kevingadd 13y agoThe problem is herd immunity. If you're okay with getting sick and you opt not to get vaccinated, whatever. You can get sick. The problem is that by getting sick you are now able to spread your affliction onto others, and you're compromising herd immunity. If enough people get vaccinated, it protects the unvaccinated people as well by stopping the spread of disease. So each person who withholds vaccination increases the chance that the disease will be able to spread and reach all the unvaccinated. EDIT: To give a more simple example, do you think it's okay for people to show up to work badly ill with the Flu or some other transmissible disease? What if they get the whole team sick? Is that okay?
- fleitz 13y agoTo me vaccines provide enough individual benefit that there is no need for a social solution. Vaccines are not a case of market failure. Especially in the United States it strikes me as insane that vaccine manufactures are by law not liable for the side effects of vaccines, yet people would propose to hold individual parents liable for not vaccinating their children. (Note: I'm not talking about crazy autism stuff, but the risks that have been proven and for which industry has sought protection)
- kevingadd 13y agoTo me the benefits of herd immunity dramatically outweigh the consequences of minor side effects from vaccines. The immunocompromised have few options other than to rely on the rest of us to get vaccinated.
- hga 13y agoIgnoring for the moment how totally insane our legal system is, I think it's very debatable it's the right tool to deal with side effects. The thing is, we know there are going to be side effects, some severe, some fatal. The government licenses these vaccines knowing, statistically, that X number of people will get sick, Y crippled, Z killed. But it does this because the alternative is far worse. So as long as it's not stingy, it makes sense for it to run a system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court) to pay out to those families affected, rather than the capricious legal system that won't compensate a lot of people. As I've noted elsewhere, expose manufacturers to unlimited liability and we eventually won't have any left. We were in fact almost there when the compensation system was changed. Also, you may not be talking about "crazy autism stuff", but lawyers certainly were and would be if set loose again.
- eip 13y agoIf you think vaccines are so effective then take yours, stop worrying, and leave everyone else alone. Not everyone wants to be part of the herd. Herds get slaughtered.
- jlgreco 13y agoNow that is what I would call a depraved indifference to human life.
- eip 13y agoAll science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary? In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.
- swombat 13y agoOff with you and your conspiration-theory articles. We don't need you here.
- arbitrarywords 13y agoThe complication is vaccines have two benefits. 1. I am less likely to be infected 2. I am less likely to infect someone who can't be vaccinated. If you want people to leave you alone then you have to convince them that point 2 is less important than something else.
- eip 13y agohttp://rense.com/general86/killa4.htm http://rense.com/general86/killa4.htm We begin to see the true purpose of GAVI once we realize that its official literature contain thousands of papers, journals and textbooks on what is known as "Reproductive Immunology" or to the layman, "how to make women immune to pregnancy." A GAVI article from 1991 has the headline "The WHO Task Force on Vaccine for Fertility Regulation". Numerous institutes have reproductive immunology on their research scheme. And as we see, the method is based solely on vaccination programs and the WHO is deeply involved in their practical implementation.
- dnautics 13y agoWho is liable when the child gets sick from the vaccine? It happens. Rarely, but in this country we are supposed to protect the minority and the freedom of choice against coersion, which this is.
- hga 13y agoThe government does through an excise tax on covered vaccines and a no-fault court system to cover claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court And you should at least admit there are two minorities in the balance, children who's parents refuse to get them vaccinated, and children who are not immunized because they can't take them or don't develop a sufficient response. Too many of the former and the "herd affect" stops protecting the latter.
- Executor 13y agoThe issue has to do with free will. Not much else.