246
Should parents who refuse childhood vaccines be liable if their choice harms someone else’s kid? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
88 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 11 months ago (6 children)

And if vaccinations are against their religion? I'm not siding with them btw just curious how other people want to handle cult members in regards to holding them liable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I still think they should be held liable, this is a preventable disease.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    If they choose to not vaccinate their child, fine. But they shouldn’t then expose other people to their children’s infections.

    It gets messier when they are communicable before symptoms are showing. But if my Sally and your Bobby were at a party with 10 other kids, and the next day bobby is showing symtoms, and then a week later a binch of kids at the party are as well, then they should be held responsible.

    Especially if they had reason to believe Bobby had been exposed to it days prior.

    Make your choices, but if your religious choices are that important to you, then account for how that impacts other choices you make, and don’t put other people at risk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent