|
Main Paineframe posted:http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/09/06/more-california-parents-opting-out-of-vaccines-look-up-your-school-online/ Just to be clear, I'm simply referring to the Hollywood Reporter piece I posted previously. I didn't know it was this widespread in the public schools as well.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I wonder if that's really politically possible right now. The growing prevalence of religious and now "philosophical" exemptions in schools didn't just spring up out of thin air - it's a political concession to growing numbers of highly opinionated antivaxxer parents with enough localized political power to push exemptions to mandatory vaccination policies. If it was ever possible to combat the modern antivaxxer movement with legislation alone, it's probably too late for that now. Maybe if it were federal legislation, it'd be possible, but it'd probably have to be a state law and there's at least a few states where antivaxxers definitely have the numbers and influence necessary to block or defang mandatory vaccinations. Beyond politics, for the reasons Actus has discussed policies taking this tack are pretty directly not constitutional. The government has very little ability to directly intervene in the "raising of children"- it's the same reason there isn't a constitutional right to a good education, and why we can't ban charter and private schools. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Most of those "public schools" are charters unsurprisingly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
there's also an issue re: whether the state can compel someone to do something to their kid for the benefit of someone else's kid. The parental duty is to their own child, not the other kids in the community. So "but it hurts the herd immunity" is not going to be considered in a case of alleged parental neglect. now, what the state can do is exercises it's police power to protect the safety of public spaces by not allowing unimmunized kids in state licensed day cares, schools etc...but "this is dangerous to others" is not a factor in a parental neglect analysis. It has to be specific harm to the specific child. Since the risk of illness is still low (lol, irony..because of vaccines, god that kills me every time!) it's going to be very hard to prove neglect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:there's also an issue re: whether the state can compel someone to do something to their kid for the benefit of someone else's kid. The parental duty is to their own child, not the other kids in the community. So "but it hurts the herd immunity" is not going to be considered in a case of alleged parental neglect. now, what the state can do is exercises it's police power to protect the safety of public spaces by not allowing unimmunized kids in state licensed day cares, schools etc...but "this is dangerous to others" is not a factor in a parental neglect analysis. It has to be specific harm to the specific child. Here's a bit of a hypothetical: Lets say during an outbreak of whooping cough, a state health agency collects or otherwise has access to bacterial cultures from each patient. Using some basic genetic analysis*, we can trace a rough timeline as to who was infected first and how the infection spread. If such an analysis could show that the source or a significant source of infections are coming from children whose parents are not vaccinating, does this change anything from a legal perspective? *Obviously this would require a significantly large database of whooping cough samples and enough time/money/manpower/lab capacity to do, but the science itself is sound. I worked in a lab where we did this very thing with E. Coli and several other strains of food contaminants to trace major outbreaks. I'm more interested in seeing if such data would clear the legal hurdles that have been brought up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Doctors and scientists are reluctant to attack wingnuts legally, except in cases of misconduct, because we have very little faith that won't ultimately turn into a political process to silence minority scientific opinions. Wakefield has been destroyed, but there aren't that many Wakefields to go after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Here's a bit of a hypothetical: If there was truly an outbreak, it might change the "significant risk" analysis for purposes of a "were you negligent to your own child" if *your child* got sick, but generally a parent doesn't have a legal duty to protect other people's kids. If I were at public pool (not as a lifeguard) and I saw a kid drowning, and I am a certified advanced open water diver (which it just so happens that I am. brag.) I would be a real shithead not to dive in and save them, but legally I'm not obligated to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If there was truly an outbreak, it might change the "significant risk" analysis for purposes of a "were you negligent to your own child" if *your child* got sick, but generally a parent doesn't have a legal duty to protect other people's kids. On the other hand, at least in Israeli law, if you are at the scene of a car accident, you are obligated to help. What kind of risk is a doctor taking upon themselves when administering a vaccine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Part of the difficulty in treating the anti-vaccination movement is that followers of the anti-vaccination movement don't trust authority figures unless they're some sort of big celebrity personality. While it's true that Wakefield is the source of a lot of the anti-vaccination hysteria, it didn't really catch on in the US until Jenny McCarthy latched onto it. Retracting the Wakefield study and revoking Wakefield's medical license might have slowed down the anti-vaccination movement, but a lot of wackos still cite those studies as evidence that vaccines are dangerous. The fact that vaccines are made by corporations and endorsed by the government is enough proof that they're probably bad for you. Any scientific studies proving their safety or effectiveness have suspect motives, in the eyes of these people; they think that anyone who publishes something that helps Big Pharma must be in Big Pharma's pocket. You see the same effect in the anti-GMO movement; even if the scientists conducting a GMO safety study have no relation to anyone in any large agricultural corporation, as soon as that study leans in favor of GMOs suddenly those scientists are obviously paid shills in the pocket of Monsanto. So how do you influence people who honestly believe that bullshit anecdotal stories are superior to credible scientific evidence and who happily espouse logical fallacies at the drop of a hat? Discrediting the source of their stories doesn't work. Providing more scientific evidence doesn't work. Maybe people who are pro-vaccination need to provide a few anecdotal stories of their own
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If there was truly an outbreak, it might change the "significant risk" analysis for purposes of a "were you negligent to your own child" if *your child* got sick, but generally a parent doesn't have a legal duty to protect other people's kids. I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that even if we can show that Parent A's inaction directly led to the child of Parent B to be infected, maimed or killed by a vaccine preventable disease that Parent A has no legal responsibility for damages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that even if we can show that Parent A's inaction directly led to the child of Parent B to be infected, maimed or killed by a vaccine preventable disease that Parent A has no legal responsibility for damages. The policy being discussed would be prospective, relating to the vaccination decision itself, not necessarily the results further down the line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that even if we can show that Parent A's inaction directly led to the child of Parent B to be infected, maimed or killed by a vaccine preventable disease that Parent A has no legal responsibility for damages. OK, so now we are talking not neglect, but liability to third parties. are you talking criminal or civil legal responsibility? in either case, it comes down to causation. it has to be the direct and foreseeable consequence. problems with this are 1. you will probably not be able to "prove" that parent's decision not to vaccinate was the cause as a. if there is an outbreak, how do you know it was "their" kid that infected your kid? And if you're going after patient zero, then there was probably an intervening actor there. 2. It's not a reasonably foreseeable because the contraction rates are still low (again...the irony...it's killing me.) however...for an interesting case in which a school was found liable for not providing travel vaccines, check out Munn v. Hotchkiss School. I disagree with the case...but sometimes juries are weird. (and also the school's defense team made some major strategic blunders in this case, IMO.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/cara-munn-hochkiss-school_n_2966560.html ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Part of the difficulty in treating the anti-vaccination movement is that followers of the anti-vaccination movement don't trust authority figures unless they're some sort of big celebrity personality. While it's true that Wakefield is the source of a lot of the anti-vaccination hysteria, it didn't really catch on in the US until Jenny McCarthy latched onto it.... Maybe people who are pro-vaccination need to provide a few anecdotal stories of their own How? Go around saying, "My kid got vaccinated and doesn't have Autism or Polio." The whole point of vaccines is so that after you receive them, there is no story to tell, you are set for life (or the year in the case of flu). Without a large population of people visibly succumbing to the ravages of preventable diseases to act as a warning, what sort of anecdote would you want? Though it would be great if some Granola-Lobby Fuckwit Celebrity, who lives off Organic Goatgrass and fluoride-free water came out publicly and vocally in favor of vaccines. That would do a lot to staunch the bleeding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:1. you will probably not be able to "prove" that parent's decision not to vaccinate was the cause as a. if there is an outbreak, how do you know it was "their" kid that infected your kid? And if you're going after patient zero, then there was probably an intervening actor there. Under certain conditions, you can show that Kid A infected Kid B via genetic analysis of bacterial cultures from both children. Same methods we use to trace the source of food borne illnesses and determine what needs to be recalled and which processing plants need to be cleaned up. The genetic code in bacteria changes fast enough that these changes can be observed and measured to determine a rough generational family tree of a given infection. My former lab did this with E coli, listeria, salmonella, campylobacter and other strains. Combined with contract tracing and under certain conditions, I think you could indeed say, "your kid infected mine". Heck, we also traced anthrax using a similar method back in the day. Like I said before, it might not always be practical, but this isn't some crazy CSI "zoom and enhance" type analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:How? Go around saying, "My kid got vaccinated and doesn't have Autism or Polio." The whole point of vaccines is so that after you receive them, there is no story to tell, you are set for life (or the year in the case of flu). http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_26046664/california-health-officials-report-third-infant-death-from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/08/3609324/disneyland-measles/
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Like I said before, it might not always be practical, but this isn't some crazy CSI "zoom and enhance" type analysis. this. right here...especially as you will still end up smashed against the "reasonably foreseeable" question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Here's a bit of a hypothetical: Under current law, no. Why would it? Even if a single non-vaccinating family could be fingered as the origin point of multiple epidemics, and even if multiple fatalities resulted from those epidemics, I'm not aware of any legal doctrine that holds people criminally liable for spreading disease. Solkanar512 posted:I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that even if we can show that Parent A's inaction directly led to the child of Parent B to be infected, maimed or killed by a vaccine preventable disease that Parent A has no legal responsibility for damages. Non-vaccination isn't "directly", that's why. If you were injured by bank robbers fleeing the scene of their crime, would you be able to sue the bank for insufficient security measures that allowed robbers to get in, steal the money, get out, and hurt you? Even if there was negligence on the part of the bank, and even if you wouldn't have been injured if they had implemented proper security, it's still a real stretch to call them directly responsible for any losses besides their own. Similarly, if an unvaccinated child causes an epidemic, it's a real stretch to pin legal responsibility on patient zero's parents for the epidemic, unless they were doing some crazy smallpox-blankets poo poo with the explicit intent of deliberately infecting people. Their decision to take their unvaccinated child to a place where the disease still exists may be enough to count them as endangering their own child, but they can't really be held directly responsible for any spread of the disease beyond that. Also, more importantly, I don't think there's much precedent for holding people legally responsible for the spread of disease at all, outside of a "serious and prolonged health code violations" situation? If someone infected with Ebola comes to the US, infects a busload of people, and survives the disease, we're not going to charge them with the deaths of those who caught the disease from them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Diseases exist. Vaccines help provide resistance against diseases. Diseases can kill. Not vaccinating needlessly increases the risks of disease killing a child under your care. How is that not reasonable based on anything but legalistic pedantry?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Diseases exist. Vaccines help provide resistance against diseases. Diseases can kill. Not vaccinating needlessly increases the risks of disease killing a child under your care. How is that not reasonable based on anything but legalistic pedantry? You do realize that the law is based on Pedantry to an insane degree right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Diseases exist. Vaccines help provide resistance against diseases. Diseases can kill. Not vaccinating needlessly increases the risks of disease killing a child under your care. How is that not reasonable based on anything but legalistic pedantry? I really wish people in DnD would stop using the term pedantry, especially in the context of legislative proposals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Diseases exist. Vaccines help provide resistance against diseases. Diseases can kill. Not vaccinating needlessly increases the risks of disease killing a child under your care. How is that not reasonable based on anything but legalistic pedantry? Diseases exist. Washing your hands after you use the bathroom helps provide resistance against diseases. Diseases can kill. Not washing your hands after you use the bathroom needlessly increases the risks of disease killing a child under your care. Therefore anyone who leaves the bathroom without washing their hands should be charged with murder, or at the very least negligent manslaughter. How is that not reasonable based on anything but legalistic pedantry?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Under current law, no. Why would it? Even if a single non-vaccinating family could be fingered as the origin point of multiple epidemics, and even if multiple fatalities resulted from those epidemics, I'm not aware of any legal doctrine that holds people criminally liable for spreading disease. Typhoid Mary got locked up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Typhoid Mary got locked up for it. typhoid mary was already a disease carrier who was negligently or recklessly passing on disease to her customers...it's like how in some states you can prosecute a person who knows they have AIDS for having unprotected sex. an unvaccinated kid is only a "potential" disease carrier. Big difference there. also 1910.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Typhoid Mary got locked up for it. Sure, but she was never held legally liable for any of the infections or deaths she caused. She was just quarantined as an ongoing public health hazard due to her continued refusal to comply with even the most basic health guidelines. If you think locking up all nonvaccinators indefinitely without recourse until they vaccinate would be effective or practical, feel free to give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:typhoid mary was already a disease carrier who was negligently or recklessly passing on disease to her customers...it's like how in some states you can prosecute a person who knows they have AIDS for having unprotected sex. Until they become a disease carrier yes, which will happen when they cause an outbreak. It's not like typhoid mary got locked up before she spread typhoid. Main Paineframe posted:Sure, but she was never held legally liable for any of the infections or deaths she caused. Sure, she was just imprisoned interminably, which is basically the same as being convicted and sent to jail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Until they become a disease carrier yes, which will happen when they cause an outbreak. a. And then we have a different analysis...which as someone else pointed out would still fail, because hey, we didn't prosecute Ebola man. Now, you could legally quarantine a symptomatic unvaccinated kid...but that's because they are a disease carrier, not because they are unvaccinated. b. no...it's not. see e.g. involuntary committal of mental patients; civil commitment of sexual predators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:a. And then we have a different analysis...which as someone else pointed out would still fail, because hey, we didn't prosecute Ebola man. Now, you could legally quarantine a symptomatic unvaccinated kid...but that's because they are a disease carrier, not because they are unvaccinated. I don't care if people are actually legally prosecuted if they're still punished for being health hazards. That is essentially jailing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't care if people are actually legally prosecuted if they're still punished for being health hazards. except it's not "punishment" a person is a schizophrenic having homicidal ideations...they are hospitalized. Are they being punished?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:except it's not "punishment" In what way is being deprived of the ability to leave captivity not punishment? Or are you coming out to me as a severe masochist? Yes they are in fact being punished, especially considering the current mental health system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:except it's not "punishment" ask them if they think they are being punished What you call it doesn't really matter, especially when it takes someones life away. I support it in a lot of cases, because sometimes people really do need to be removed for their own or for others safety, but whitewashing it just leads to desensitization or something. Sorry, phoneposting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In what way is being deprived of the ability to leave captivity not punishment? Or are you coming out to me as a severe masochist? legally it's not punishment. GreyPowerVan posted:ask them if they think they are being punished It doesn't matter what they think. Legally it is not a punishment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:legally it's not punishment. What isn't? So what you're saying is it is in fact ok to lock up people who don't vaccinate or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:legally it's not punishment. I know you have this absurd love for the legal system, but have you ever heard of the word 'ethics'? empathy? emotions? Nintendo Kid posted:What isn't? fishmech you know that's not what actus is saying come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What isn't? no. I'm explaining how legally you can quarantine someone who is contagious. GreyPowerVan posted:I know you have this absurd love for the legal system, but have you ever heard of the word 'ethics'? empathy? emotions? You're right. let the unmedicated homicidal schizophrenic roam free, because feels. I can't imagine why in a thread discussing legalities of proposed legislation I would resort to discussion of the law...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. I'm explaining how legally you can quarantine someone who is contagious. So you're saying we could and should legally quarantine people until they vaccinate? I agree with the should part definitely. But I don't see why you think there's a legal definition of punishment involved that makes it ok. That sounds like some serious middle school level reading of law to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. I'm explaining how legally you can quarantine someone who is contagious. The reason people jump on you in the Police Reform thread occasionally and why I responded kind of strongly in this thread is that you state things as if they're your thoughts and opinions rather than telling people that you're the mouthpiece of the law. It can make people think that you're a robot. ActusRhesus posted:no. I'm explaining how legally you can quarantine someone who is contagious. I'm obviously not advocating to let unmedicated schizophrenics roam free(or Typhoid Mary...), but looking at it as "oh it's for their own good!" makes it seem like less of a deal than literally locking someone up. Just say that it is what it is. SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:The reason people jump on you in the Police Reform thread occasionally and why I responded kind of strongly in this thread is that you state things as if they're your thoughts and opinions rather than telling people that you're the mouthpiece of the law. It can make people think that you're a robot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you're saying we could and should legally quarantine people until they vaccinate? I agree with the should part definitely. no. that's not what I said. you can, however, do what all 50 states have done and restrict unvaccinated children from state licensed daycares and schools under the state's police powers, and in loco parentis duties... (except they spoil it by granting all the drat exemptions.) Nintendo Kid posted:But I don't see why you think there's a legal definition of punishment involved that makes it ok. That sounds like some serious middle school level reading of law to me. Because legally there is a huge difference between punishment (e.g. criminal incarceration) and other forms of administrative restrictions. But please, tell me more about your in-depth 9th grade level reading of the law... go on, I'll wait. GreyPowerVan posted:The reason people jump on you in the Police Reform thread occasionally and why I responded kind of strongly in this thread is that you state things as if they're your thoughts and opinions rather than telling people that you're the mouthpiece of the law. It can make people think that you're a robot. Did I suggest it wasn't locking them up? No. I didn't. I said it wasn't "punishment" in the legal sense. And if you need a map and a flashlight to show you "ahoy, here thar be legal analysis" I don't know what to tell you. How I "feel" about something, is pretty loving irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's obvious that they are just explaining the status quo, whether or not the status quo is good or not is an entirely unrelated matter. In fact, they've gone out of their way to preface statements with "Legally, <statement>", as opposed to "Morally/Ethically, <statement>". If you're confused about that I think that's on you. Yes, as I assume it is on all of the other people that argue with Actus, like multiple pages of posters in other threads. Said I'm phoneposting, so I didn't notice who I was talking to until the last couple of posts, where I realized who it was. Anyways, there's a lot of stuff like that where the "legally...." statements are a cover for personal beliefs, such as racists who say "legally employers can't be racist so they aren't." and I had to deal with one of those today in one of my classes. Sorry for being on edge  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
Did you know that the laws did not spring into being fully-fleshed out and were in fact created by people's interpretation of them, over time? It literally does matter and is not irrelevant in the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:43
|
|