Jump to content
IGNORED

CA Vaccine Law - Pt 2 - Now W/arguments about everything!


happy atheist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Washing hands is not invasive or unnatural. I don't think it's a good comparison. Have you seen the studies on how many germs are on a Physician's lab coat? :x

Vaccines aren't terribly invasive or unnatural either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FundieFarmer, we kind of discussed the education piece in the last thread. I don't think the staunch antivaxxers are going to believe much put out by the government or the vaccine companies. There's distrust there and that's why I don't think mandating is going to solve the problem or get to the root of the issue. Independent research from parties not affiliated with the government or the drug companies themselves is what it will take. I don't know how that's possible. I really don't. And I don't think the antivaxxers really think about the ramifications that declining vaccines can have on other people.

I know, but I didn't see a definitive proposal or answers to my questions. If mandating isn't preferable, and there's distrust for education, and insurance companies aren't an outlet, then what's the solution? To me, mandating is the simplest answer, with the most benefits and lowest risk, for all the reasons we've discussed in the past 50+ pages. But both you and BekahDimples have lauded education, so I'm wondering what the sustainable model either of you had in mind would be.

Independent studies have been done- many, in fact. Here's a link to the AAP's 20-page catalog of links to actual independent studies/research that have been reviewed and published by the government and in scientific journals, including JAMA, British Medical Journal, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, etc.

aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

Point being, the research is there, but people still choose not to believe it. So where do we go with education?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that all of the resources for the education anybody would want to have are available. Want a pro-vax argument? Go get it, there's stats for that. Want an anti-vax argument? Go get it, there's stats for that. Want neutral? There's an app for that too. Much of the time, people look for what they believe, even with independent studies proving otherwise. If an education is offered to the contrary, it's assumed to be paid for by the opposing party, and therefore corrupted.

I'm all for brainstorming ideas for solutions, but at least to me, it doesn't make sense to do so without proposing feasible and sustainable ways to implement them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuz wiki is a reliable source;)

Well, it actually provides citations to back itself up, which puts it head and shoulders above you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, and I think that's what makes it come to an impasse-Data for both sides, both sides thinking the other's data is skewed, inaccurate, or biased. I think both sides use fear mongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't think the antivaxxers really think about the ramifications that declining vaccines can have on other people.

Which is why mandatory vaccinations for public school children is a good thing.

We've tried it your way (allowing people to decline vaccinations just because) and IT DIDN'T WORK. That's why vaccination rates are dropping dangerously low and why there are outbreaks of measles and whooping cough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccines aren't terribly invasive or unnatural either.

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not natural to learn to fight off diseases by being injected with them in some form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what else isn't natural? Lightbulbs and refrigerators and pretty much everything else we use on a day-to-day basis here in this century thanks to innovation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what else isn't natural? Lightbulbs and refrigerators and pretty much everything else we use on a day-to-day basis here in this century thanks to innovation.

Nor is most commonly accepted health and dental care.

I like having all my teeth, thankyouverymuch. Thank God for those unnatural fillings put it some of them using unnatural drills and unnatural numbing shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some idiot refuses to vaccinate and my kid got sick, they'd be in a hella trouble. I'd likely sue or push for criminal charges but my husband is a kiwi. They'd likely not make it to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some idiot refuses to vaccinate and my kid got sick, they'd be in a hella trouble. I'd likely sue or push for criminal charges but my husband is a kiwi. They'd likely not make it to court.

I feel the same way. If my child became sick due to another parent's choice not to vaccinate and it could be proven (without a doubt) that their child was the cause there would be Hell to pay. You can bet my fiancé and I would be seeing them in court and that we would be speaking with medical professionals and legislators regarding laws that could be passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the same way. If my child became sick due to another parent's choice not to vaccinate and it could be proven (without a doubt) that their child was the cause there would be Hell to pay. You can bet my fiancé and I would be seeing them in court and that we would be speaking with medical professionals and legislators regarding laws that could be passed.

I think it's just a matter of time before this exact scenario happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not natural to learn to fight off diseases by being injected with them in some form.

Would you rather have the child's immune system attempt to learn to fight it off by having the child actually contract the disease? Because that's pretty much the alternative if you remove vaccines for Polio and Measles and Chicken Pox (among others) from the table.

I get that you don't oppose vaccinations in general (and thank you for responding to my post by the way; it did help). But like Happy said we've tried to do things your way by allowing parents to have a choice and it doesn't work. And like FundieFarmer pointed out there are lots of people on both sides who think any evidence supporting the opposing view must be corrupt and unreliable.

So what can we do? What do we do when parents are negligent or don't listen to medical advice telling them that vaccinations are generally safe? Do we continue to allow parents to refuse vaccines, knowing the chances of a major outbreak increases with each child that goes unvaccinated? Do we attempt to educate knowing that there are a lot of people who simply don't care to hear the opposing view? Or do we do what we can by making vaccines mandatory for children attending school outside the home? Tell me what makes the most sense here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just a matter of time before this exact scenario happens.

I would like to third this. As it's likely in this situation that I'd be doing the suing myself, I would make sure there's total and complete hell to pay. Once that was done, I'd follow up by exploring all options for laws. And if I didn't make it because of the exposure, well, you can just bet Mr. FF would.

I agree it's just a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not natural to learn to fight off diseases by being injected with them in some form.

Malaria, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, typhus, Chagas disease, bubonic plague, yellow fever, dengue fever, West Nile virus, leishmaniasis, sleeping sickness, eastern equine encephalitis--all completely unnatural diseases.

And that's completely ignoring the diseases that take advantage of skin and mucus membrane breaks to invade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to third this. As it's likely in this situation that I'd be doing the suing myself, I would make sure there's total and complete hell to pay. Once that was done, I'd follow up by exploring all options for laws. And if I didn't make it because of the exposure, well, you can just bet Mr. FF would.

I agree it's just a matter of time.

I'm not sure that it would be so easy to prove it. Just like we can't prove that a vaccine made someone sick or disabled. I have to ask how you would feel if one of those kids that is forced to get a mandatory vaccine develops a severe illness or even dies after getting a vaccine? They can try to get compensated from the vaccine injury fund but it's very hard to prove. I wonder if they'd have a case against the government as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that it would be so easy to prove it. Just like we can't prove that a vaccine made someone sick or disabled. I have to ask how you would feel if one of those kids that is forced to get a mandatory vaccine develops a severe illness or even dies after getting a vaccine? They can try to get compensated from the vaccine injury fund but it's very hard to prove. I wonder if they'd have a case against the government as well?

I can't answer the part about whether they'd have a case against the government (2xx, perhaps?), but I will say that yes, I'd feel terrible for a child who had a bad reaction to a vaccine. However, my understanding of research and numbers, as well as my CE study of epidemiology, tells me that number is far less than those who'd be in danger by the unvaccinated- for whom I would also feel terrible if they were to get sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor is most commonly accepted health and dental care.

I like having all my teeth, thankyouverymuch. Thank God for those unnatural fillings put it some of them using unnatural drills and unnatural numbing shots.

So when I think about this too much, I get really grossed out. As our economy progressed and people started to break off intospecialization, someone decided to specialize in being the village person who looked into other peoples mouths. Yuck.

(And my family seems to LOVE dentistry. grosses me right out.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to third this. As it's likely in this situation that I'd be doing the suing myself, I would make sure there's total and complete hell to pay. Once that was done, I'd follow up by exploring all options for laws. And if I didn't make it because of the exposure, well, you can just bet Mr. FF would.

I agree it's just a matter of time.

I have been studying Criminal Law for the bar exam in my state, and I do believe that antivaxxers can and should be charged with depraved-heart murder for failing to vax their kids if one can prove that a disease their kid had, for instance, killed an immunocompromised child who can't vaccinate.

The elements of depraved-heart murder are:

1. Defendant commits an act (taking the sick unvaxxed kid in public, maybe?);

2. Even though they know their act creates an unusually high risk of death or serious bodily harm (perhaps not always true, but could work if you knowingly take your sick kid to see a relative with cancer, HIV, etc. or don't segregate the sick child from an unvaccinated baby- it's quite likely that a sick person or baby would die or be disabled from these very serious diseases);

3. Such an act results in a death (and it does for some who catch the disease).

Depraved-heart murder is considered to be committed with malice even though it's not intentional, since defendant knew of the high risk of harm and still did it. In most jurisdictions, it's considered second-degree murder.

I'm not advancing this legal theory as an overall solution, since it would be hard to prove causation and intent to create the risk of death through contact with the sick child. But maybe, if it were possible to apply it as above to the worst anti-vaccine offenders, it would scare the rest into compliance. Depraved-heart murder is usually for something like dropping something heavy from a roof onto a populated street, or shooting a gun without checking to see whether a person is in the way, and thus killing a person. But fundamentally, I don't believe the failure to vaccinate is any different, to a vulnerable person, than not looking before dropping a piano on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister's puppy can roll over, give you a high-five, and has beautiful table manners at dinnertime - all thanks to his rabies vaccine! Nothing to do at all with the fact his parents work hard on his obedience skills or anything. Nope. Rabies shots are a the whole reason!

.

You guys have it all wrong, it's the distemperment shot that makes them so smart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my cats can sit, "up" (on hind legs) for treats, and follows me everywhere. Is that due to his anti-parasite medicine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to third this. As it's likely in this situation that I'd be doing the suing myself, I would make sure there's total and complete hell to pay. Once that was done, I'd follow up by exploring all options for laws. And if I didn't make it because of the exposure, well, you can just bet Mr. FF would.

I agree it's just a matter of time.

It may have already happened. There was an episode of Law & Order:SVU where this exact scenario took place. A toddle died from measles, after coming across an unvaccinated child in a park, who caught the disease from a child visiting from the Dominican Republic. They charged the mother of the unvaccinated child with criminally negligent homicide IIRC, and she was found not guilty.

The only reason I'm mentioning it is that although it's a TV show, and obviously not real life, Law & Order often take cases from headlines and re-work them, so I'm wondering if that was the case in this particular episode. I know little about US law, so don't know if this is even possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been studying Criminal Law for the bar exam in my state, and I do believe that antivaxxers can and should be charged with depraved-heart murder for failing to vax their kids if one can prove that a disease their kid had, for instance, killed an immunocompromised child who can't vaccinate.

The elements of depraved-heart murder are:

1. Defendant commits an act (taking the sick unvaxxed kid in public, maybe?);

2. Even though they know their act creates an unusually high risk of death or serious bodily harm (perhaps not always true, but could work if you knowingly take your sick kid to see a relative with cancer, HIV, etc. or don't segregate the sick child from an unvaccinated baby- it's quite likely that a sick person or baby would die or be disabled from these very serious diseases);

3. Such an act results in a death (and it does for some who catch the disease).

Depraved-heart murder is considered to be committed with malice even though it's not intentional, since defendant knew of the high risk of harm and still did it. In most jurisdictions, it's considered second-degree murder.

I'm not advancing this legal theory as an overall solution, since it would be hard to prove causation and intent to create the risk of death through contact with the sick child. But maybe, if it were possible to apply it as above to the worst anti-vaccine offenders, it would scare the rest into compliance. Depraved-heart murder is usually for something like dropping something heavy from a roof onto a populated street, or shooting a gun without checking to see whether a person is in the way, and thus killing a person. But fundamentally, I don't believe the failure to vaccinate is any different, to a vulnerable person, than not looking before dropping a piano on them.

That might be what it takes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.