Vaccination exemption in CA, personal down, medical up

[Catholic_Lady]

So then *every* time a child dies due to something that *could* have been prevented we should hold the parents criminally culpable? No, not every time. Sometimes yes. But sometimes no, such as the case with the alligator in Orlando. We both agree that it shouldn't be *every* time. We just don't agree on where to draw the line.

[Seraphina]

Splashing around in a pond without alligators = not inherently dangerous
Splashing around in a pond known to have alligators = inherently dangerous.

Not vaccinating your kid when there aren't common, dangerous preventable diseases around = not inherently dangerous.
Not vaccinating your kid when there are common, dangerous preventable diseases around = inherently dangerous.


You're right CL, splashing around in "a pond" isn't dangerous, but it is when we know there are alligators around.  And preventable diseases are the alligators in this case.  We know they exist and they infect kids, so not vaccinating them is inherently dangerous, unless you're planning on keeping them in a bubble and away from all human contact.

I'm sure the parents of that boy knew alligators existed. They probably just didn't figure they would be a threat within that situation - in Disney World, at a Resort. Likewise, parents who don't give their kids the polio vax I'm sure just assume polio is not any sort of real threat within their lifestyle and location. If their kid ends up with polio, obviously it means they were wrong and had incredibly bad judgement. Just as the parents of the boy in Orlando. But they were not criminally culpable for what happened.

Bold is mine-
The first world moms and dads who dismiss the need to vaccinate and believe it's ok to reject vaccines are mostly able to assume polio is not any sort of real threat because of herd immunity...because of all the other parents who have vaccinated their children.
Ironically the vaccine rejecters are often riding along with the herd immunity. For some reason, though, they are trying to spread their misinformation and propaganda, possibly resulting in other parents rejecting vaccines and thereby breaking down herd immunity. These people have not really thought about the potential consequences of their viewpoints and "choices".

I saw a woman in her early 20s interviewed on local TV a few years ago. Her parents rejected vaccines and she caught an infectious disease when she was younger. (I forget which infectious disease.) She said her parents made a poor decision and should have had her vaccinated.

-Teresa

[Jackalope]

I saw a woman in her early 20s interviewed on local TV a few years ago. Her parents rejected vaccines and she caught an infectious disease when she was younger. (I forget which infectious disease.) She said her parents made a poor decision and should have had her vaccinated.

Back when I was in high school, I lived in a generally well-educated, solidly middle class neighborhood. Three blocks away a girl a couple of years older than me died of an infectious disease that her parents purposefully denied her vaccination for. They also happened to withhold medical treatment which would have likely saved her life.

Either way, it's just a choice, right?

[Seraphina]

I'm just going to call it Darwinism now.

-Teresa

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC the parents of a child eaten by an alligator are responsible.  The alligator didn't bust down their door and demand snacks.  It wasn't an act of god.  It was stupidity and neglect.  

So is declining vaccinations.

[bennyboy]

So then *every* time a child dies due to something that *could* have been prevented we should hold the parents criminally culpable? No, not every time. Sometimes yes. But sometimes no, such as the case with the alligator in Orlando. We both agree that it shouldn't be *every* time. We just don't agree on where to draw the line.

The line is pretty unambiguous: it's a matter of context and intent.

If a person doesn't know there are crocodiles in a body of water, and there's no sign saying so, there's clearly no neglect, even though the child has been allowed to swim near crocodiles.

If there are crocodile warnings, but someone has heard from a few people that crocodiles don't attack small children, then in letting the kid in the body of water, he's especially stupid but not exactly negligent, since he has no intent of ignoring possible harm to the child.

If a park ranger TELLS the person about the dangers of crocodiles, gives links to statistics about child deaths, shows video of a goddamned crocodile attacking a child, and the person still decided to side with Bubba and Bessie's opinion (that crocodiles don't attack small children), then he is taking willful action against the state and must be made to act properly, or prevented from acting at all.

Here's where the analogy ends.  To really parallel the stupidity of anti-vaxxers, you'd have to have a random chance that the kid is going to go to school with a 15-foot croc without anybody noticing, and force all the other kids to touch it. There's another problem, too: some diseases are probably far more likely to kill a kid than a crocodile, EVEN IF the kid were to go swim with it.
 
So yeah.  No vax = crime, IMO, and a particularly irresponsible one.  I'd maybe throw out the word "traitor" given how deliberate and harmful to other citizens such an action would be.

[Joods]

Splashing around in a pond without alligators = not inherently dangerous
Splashing around in a pond known to have alligators = inherently dangerous.

Not vaccinating your kid when there aren't common, dangerous preventable diseases around = not inherently dangerous.
Not vaccinating your kid when there are common, dangerous preventable diseases around = inherently dangerous.


You're right CL, splashing around in "a pond" isn't dangerous, but it is when we know there are alligators around.  And preventable diseases are the alligators in this case.  We know they exist and they infect kids, so not vaccinating them is inherently dangerous, unless you're planning on keeping them in a bubble and away from all human contact.

I'm sure the parents of that boy knew alligators existed. (1)They probably just didn't figure they would be a threat within that situation - in Disney World, at a Resort. Likewise, parents who don't give their kids the polio vax (2)I'm sure just assume polio is not any sort of real threat within their lifestyle and location. If their kid ends up with polio, obviously it means they were wrong and had incredibly bad judgement. Just as the parents of the boy in Orlando. (3)But they were not criminally culpable for what happened.

emphasis's mine. 

1. Because gators on Disney property are more friendly than gators on property not owned by Disney? Isn't that really just dumbing down the parents? Signs were posted. Captain Obvious shouldn't have to stand there verbally telling parents to watch their kids. Sorry, but that sort of logic is the reason warning labels are on shampoo bottles.
2. In this day and age, with all we know about polio or meningitis or the measles or mumps or any other preventable disease, I'd like to see you provide some actual statistics on the number of parents who "just assume" to know nothing or next to nothing about what polio (for example) can do to a child. Ignorance is no excuse for not providing the proper vaccinations for a child. Pediatricians have numerous sources of information regarding why vaccinations are crucial. For a parent to not be educated about any of them is just absurd. 
3. Parents don't get a free pass for being ignorant. They should be held 100% completely responsible on a criminal level because there were warning signs posted all around that lake. Likewise, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children based on some misguided principle and not because of a medical reason, should be held criminally responsible when their kid infects another kid with a totally preventable disease, that wouldn't have taken a life, had the first child been properly vaccinated. Similarly, if their own kid dies as a result of their blatant ignorance, they should be held criminally liable for that too.  

Do you think that parents should be held criminally responsible for a toddler getting a hold of a loaded gun, sitting on a table and killing themselves or someone else with it? Or do you think that's just an unfortunate accident and the parents shouldn't be charged with manslaughter?

Ever hear of the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? There's a reason that saying exists. Because it's true.

[Pat Mustard]

No, I wouldn't say they are culpable for their child's death. They made a foolish decision that made their child vulnerable to the disease, yes, and unfortunately as bad luck would have it, the child caught the disease.

But I don't see not giving a vaccine as an intrinsically dangerous thing to do, in and of itself.

*My emphasis*

I separated this for emphasis. Seriously though, CL, do you not see the problem here? Isn't it intrinsically dangerous not to safeguard your children against something that could kill them?

This isn't about a "foolish decision" this is about actively turning one's nose up at the fact that if you don't vaccinate your children *by choice* you are needlessly throwing them to the bacterial/viral wolves. We're talking neglectful and downright abusive levels of stupidity and willful ignorance.

Worse, by not vaccinating your kids you are actively engaging in a destructive course of action, destroying herd immunity and putting other peoples' children at risk.

[Ravenshire]

I think I understand C_L's stance. That too strict of regulation over immunizations will infringe on parental rights. C_L Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem with this line of reasoning is the old maxim that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Parents are afforded a lot of latitude in regards to their kids. They can teach their kids about religions, or not. Make them vegetarian, or not. They get to control what they see and hear from popular media. Hell, they can even make them like without most of the conveniences of modern technologies. Parental rights are a wonderful thing and should not lightly be infringed.

Just like your right to swing your fist, parental rights have a limit. That limit being the well being of the child. It is not your right to hold your infant in your arms in the passenger seat of a moving car. It is not your right to allow your kid to splash around in a pond in a reclaimed swamp in Florida. It is not your right to give your 6-year old a loaded Smith and Wesson and tell them to go play. In short, it is not your right to willingly and knowingly put your kid in harms way, yet this is exactly what anti-vaxers are doing.

C_L, if that's your stance, you'll never find any agreement from anyone but anti-vaxers and those unwilling to think things through.

[Succubus]

Wahay!!! Some judge in Michigan has been following this thread.

A mother in the US state of Michigan has been sentenced to seven days in jail after she refused a judge's order to have her son vaccinated.

True dat.