Comments on: Death By “Unvaccination”

By: Curt Sampson

Curt Sampson — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:33:16 +0000

Tm, many of us are accusing parents who do not vaccinate of negligence because we *did* “get information and do research.” To anybody who looks at this from an unbiased, scientific point of view, the evidence is thoroughly on the side of vaccinating.

By: Should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be held accountable? | Telecom News

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:07:36 +0000

[...] (via Dr. Val) take a stand against parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. WhiteCoat asks, “Should parents who fail to take steps to prevent a largely preventable illness be held [...]

By: TDB

TDB — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:44:14 +0000

We had a similar situation in my home state when I was in high school (a kid flew into the state w/ measels) and they ended up revaccinating all the students in the urban areas where people were likely to be exposed. The state paid for it so it did not cost the parents. I know there was a form you had to take home to get your parents to fill out for permission, but since I was 15 I did not care. They did the same thing for Hep A & B. It costs the state (not a poor state though), but I think more parents were willing to let their children get the vaccinations because it did not cost them than they would have otherwise. I felt sorry for the nurses and such administering the shots though, 1200+ shots a day at some of those schools…

By: Tm

Tm — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:30:05 +0000

People should get information and do research before accusing parents who do not vaccinate of negligence. What about the children who die from receiving vaccines or the ones that get the disease in spite of being vaccinated??? Parents who question vaccination are not idiots they have their childs best interest at heart. the pharmacutical companies do not have your best interest at heart. They just care about getting their money and selling more and more vaccines. they do not care if a few children die because of the side effects. If its was one of their kids im sure it would be a different story.

By: Nurse K

Nurse K — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:04:09 +0000

The laws are different when there is an immediate risk of death. The state can intervene when this occurs and appoint a neutral someone to act in the child’s best interest if necessary. If the child dies due to medical neglect, that would be manslaughter in all likelihood.

With vaccination, the parent is really playing roulette with preventable illnesses, but there is still little chance of the child getting any of the illnesses due to herd immunity vs. a very real risk of death with something like bacterial meningitis. Bacterial meningitis may kill you fast enough and have a high enough success rate of killing you even WITH appropriate treatment where it wouldn’t even be manslaughter, however. Usually these manslaughter charges are brought against people who let their child die of type I diabetes or something like that which is more insidious where treatment prevents death nearly 100% of the time.

By: Nurse K

Nurse K — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:46:02 +0000

From what I'm reading, some states allow civil suits for things like this, but, obviously, the ethical argument is moreso preserving individual rights vs. rights of others to be protected from undue harm/suffering. I tend to think vaccination should be mandated for everyone, but I know how crayzees are, and crayzees will find a way to get an exemption. As long as the states allow people to object for whatever reason, it will be impossible to completely protect your child from children who are unvaccinated, and that's just how it is. All you can do is educate people on the importance of vaccines if someone is protesting and emphasize the fact that your child and innocent children may die unnecessarily due to their decision.

By: WhiteCoat

WhiteCoat — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:31:54 +0000

What would happen to a parent if their child was “naturally” infected with neisseria meningiditis and the parents refused antibiotics because they were full of toxins and didn’t allow the child to develop a proper immune response?
Negligent homicide?
Manslaughter?

By: WhiteCoat

WhiteCoat — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:24:41 +0000

I don’t think that losing a child should be sufficient “punishment.” What about the other children in the family, if any? Is it OK to similarly risk their lives as more “punishment” to the parents?
What if my child dies because she is exposed to an unvaccinated child? One of my kids has an IgA deficiency and she just got over a mild case of varicella despite having received the vaccine – she can’t mount an immune response. Why should she be punished for conscious but irrational beliefs of others?
If you want to change behavior, you can do so with a stick or with a carrot. The carrot hasn’t worked.

By: WhiteCoat

WhiteCoat — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:20:44 +0000

Understanding a mindset that doesn’t follow rational thought does nothing to resolve the issue, though.
Society can’t just say it’s “OK to drink the Kool Aid” because Jenny McCarthy says so.
The issue is how to change the behavior to that of a socially conscious individual.
Are we going to use the same logic for saying that it’s OK not to use antibiotics for meningitis? Or that it’s OK to feed a child a diet that is detrimental to his or her health?

By: Nurse K

Nurse K — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:45:34 +0000

Minnesota lets you have a “philosophical” objection to getting vaccinated which requires a notorized letter explaining your objection in order to attend public schools. Note that a philosophical objection is different than a religious or a medical objection. For the religious objection, I believe your notorized document has to explain why one’s religion precludes vaccination. You can’t just say “religious exemption” and leave it at that. Obviously, if you don’t want to send your kids to public schools (ie you want to home school), you don’t have to defend your position to anyone nor vaccinate your kids.

So, I guess, the parents shouldn’t really be held liable when the state has a special law, however stupid, permitting them to put their children and other children at risk. Probably losing their child is enough, I would assume.