4 ms·

This 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 ago
Nothing 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Nobody 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 ago
      Taxing 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.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Such a guarantee would be unprecedented, and expecting it is ludicrous. You can get sued for many things that you cannot say you are "forced" to do.
btilly 13y ago
Much popular misinformation notwithstanding, the balance of risk between vaccination and not vaccinating is extremely lopsided. No, vaccination is not perfectly safe. But it is safer than getting sick. And for anyone who is immune compromised (the very young, the very old, people receiving chemotherapy, those with AIDS, etc) their only protection is to have everyone else vaccinated. The question is at what point your acting on your fringe beliefs are allowed to kill other people, and what liability you should have for it. And no, this is not a hypothetical point. We have concrete cases of dead babies and known infection vectors. We really can say, "Your decision to not vaccinate killed that baby." In that case why shouldn't you be liable for criminally negligent manslaughter?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > In that case why shouldn't you be liable for criminally negligent manslaughter? Because causing death through actions which demonstrate depraved indifference to the risk to human life is murder [1], not manslaughter. [1] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-m...
  - btilly 13y ago
    I think that "depraved indifference to the risk to human life" is a hard standard to meet when the person who didn't vaccinate honestly believed that the vaccine posed a larger risk to their child than their unvaccinated child posed to everyone else. Compare to http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-man... where the equivalent is "The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life." The "inherently dangerous to others" standard is much, much easier to prove. And it is easy to prove regardless of the mistaken beliefs of the (ir)responsible parent.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      In the general case yes, I think you are right. It is however fairly easy to conceive of scenarios where an individuals inability to understand risks posed by their actions becomes very blurred with a refusal to understand the risks. Typhoid Mary for example was informed numerous times that she was posing a risk and the fact that they were able to re-find her after she changed her name by following her carnage should have been proof enough to her that they were probably right. I think you could make a reasonable case that Typhoid Mary had a depraved indifference to the risk to human life, even though she claimed to not believe the doctors. Edit: If you understand herd immunity and decide that you do not care (such as eip here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802206) then you surely have a depraved indifference to human life. Moreso even than Typhoid Mary could be said to have.
mikeash 13y ago
Way ahead of you: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
- lignuist 13y ago
  Interesting, but looks very US-centric to me.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Well yes, it is a program of the US government. I imagine other countries have similar things.
    - lignuist 13y ago
      For 90% of countries in the world: dream on... :(

jlgreco 13y ago

Nothing 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Nobody 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 ago
    Taxing 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.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Such a guarantee would be unprecedented, and expecting it is ludicrous. You can get sued for many things that you cannot say you are "forced" to do.

btilly 13y ago

Much popular misinformation notwithstanding, the balance of risk between vaccination and not vaccinating is extremely lopsided. No, vaccination is not perfectly safe. But it is safer than getting sick. And for anyone who is immune compromised (the very young, the very old, people receiving chemotherapy, those with AIDS, etc) their only protection is to have everyone else vaccinated. The question is at what point your acting on your fringe beliefs are allowed to kill other people, and what liability you should have for it. And no, this is not a hypothetical point. We have concrete cases of dead babies and known infection vectors. We really can say, "Your decision to not vaccinate killed that baby." In that case why shouldn't you be liable for criminally negligent manslaughter?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> In that case why shouldn't you be liable for criminally negligent manslaughter? Because causing death through actions which demonstrate depraved indifference to the risk to human life is murder [1], not manslaughter. [1] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-m...
- btilly 13y ago
  I think that "depraved indifference to the risk to human life" is a hard standard to meet when the person who didn't vaccinate honestly believed that the vaccine posed a larger risk to their child than their unvaccinated child posed to everyone else. Compare to http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-man... where the equivalent is "The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life." The "inherently dangerous to others" standard is much, much easier to prove. And it is easy to prove regardless of the mistaken beliefs of the (ir)responsible parent.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    In the general case yes, I think you are right. It is however fairly easy to conceive of scenarios where an individuals inability to understand risks posed by their actions becomes very blurred with a refusal to understand the risks. Typhoid Mary for example was informed numerous times that she was posing a risk and the fact that they were able to re-find her after she changed her name by following her carnage should have been proof enough to her that they were probably right. I think you could make a reasonable case that Typhoid Mary had a depraved indifference to the risk to human life, even though she claimed to not believe the doctors. Edit: If you understand herd immunity and decide that you do not care (such as eip here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802206) then you surely have a depraved indifference to human life. Moreso even than Typhoid Mary could be said to have.

mikeash 13y ago

Way ahead of you: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

lignuist 13y ago
Interesting, but looks very US-centric to me.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Well yes, it is a program of the US government. I imagine other countries have similar things.
  - lignuist 13y ago
    For 90% of countries in the world: dream on... :(