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
[–] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If it can be proven. Yes. But there are too many variables to be able to prove it usually.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Antibodies?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    I'm assuming you mean that the kid that wasn't vaccinated wouldn't have antibodies in his system? But how do you tie that to "This is definitely the kid that gave the measles to my child".

    Could have been that kid in his class that is unvaccinated. It could have been a kid he hung out with on the playground, or a kid he walked past in a mall.

    There's no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that just because the kid in his class wasn't vaxxed, that he was necessarily the specific vector for your child to get measles. It's impossible. To many variables.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent