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

I think there are a few issues:

  1. How do you prove kid A gave kid B measels?

  2. Why isn't kid B vaccinated? Because they don't need to be, group immunity. Well that is no longer true with anti vax so...

  3. Kid B then gives kid C measels, so kid B's parents are now liable.

  4. Your in small claims court. You have to prove damages. So you're going for loss of earning for an adult looking after the kid + pain and suffering. Is that payout going to be worth filing papers, legal advice etc.

You'd be better passing a law to mandate vaccines, but that won't be politically viable.

Just my thoughts - am not Canadian.

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

    pain and suffering.

    Minus this, that’s not a thing in Canada. You could seek future earnings if the child died but that’s hard to prove when they don’t even have a GED and it’s unlikely when the child is dead. (Also would take it out of small claims)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •