242
Should parents who refuse childhood vaccines be liable if their choice harms someone else’s kid? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question..

If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

Is that unreasonable?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Yeah, honestly you are an anti-vaxxer if your personal feelings (or crackpot theories) negatively affect your perception of vaccine science even slightly. What you're expressing here is an idea that has killed countless people and it will only get worse. Everyone should thank you for bringing back measles though, because your valiant freedom fighting "helped" us in that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Crackpot theories.. ..like.. ... how evolution works? ..or how regressive evolution works?

    Diseases have killed countless people, and we have multiple vectors (and should have multiple vectors) for addressing them.

    We have technology, as in vaccines. This is a good thing.

    We have social behaviors including social pressure (which is, unfortunately, often compulsive and not well-aimed by the people that exercise it, but such is life).

    We have individual immunity, and the direct biological pressure for health and general genetic robustness, which is also a good thing, even though it kills some of us.

    the cool thing is, we're now at a point where there are lots of anti-vaxxers who are totally willing to throw their lives away for the benefit of the species. ..and, their surviving genetic lines and the rest of the species, as their children interbreed with the rest of humanity, will be better off for it. That's true, whether you like it or not. It's also true that forcing vaccination rather than simply providing and incentivizing vaccination is a terribly, terribly flawed strategy which causes far more issues than it fixes.

    I understand that you're making social-pressure arguments, and that they are valid in the context you're in. But they aren't the end-all be-all, and they're not fundamentally scientific (or even logical) just because you're trying to support science by using them.

    I also know this whole conversation brings up tons of uncomfortable topics, for which I'll probably get yelled at. I just don't care, because being more forceful about an argument, or getting the last word, really has no bearing on the truth of that word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent