Default Style Register
Daycare.com Forum
Daycare Center and Family Home Forum>Should Non-Vaccinated Parents Be Sued?
nannyde 04:48 AM 03-11-2019
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...rm/#more-12811
Reply
Cat Herder 05:28 AM 03-11-2019
Maybe not sued, exactly, but be eligible for group insurance, nope. Private pay, all the way. AMA should have costs. You keep the right to choose but also keep the responsibility of your choices.

I feel the same way about smokers, btw.
Reply
Cat Herder 05:34 AM 03-11-2019
I meant to also say that taking a newborn or immunocompromised patient out into crowded public spaces is also AMA.
Reply
Snowmom 05:56 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by Cat Herder:
Maybe not sued, exactly, but be eligible for group insurance, nope. Private pay, all the way. AMA should have costs. You keep the right to choose but also keep the responsibility of your choices.

I feel the same way about smokers, btw.
I like that.
I'd add in no eligibility for government assistance programs.
Reply
nannyde 06:00 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by Cat Herder:
I meant to also say that taking a newborn or immunocompromised patient out into crowded public spaces is also AMA.
Newborns and immunocompromised have to go to the doctor. That's enclosed public space. What are your feelings there?
Reply
Cat Herder 06:16 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by nannyde:
Newborns and immunocompromised have to go to the doctor. That's enclosed public space. What are your feelings there?
Pre plan. Pick your provider carefully.

My PCP has separate waiting rooms and schedules for sick and well care. He is very thorough with his PPE and decon routines. Complacency is unacceptable.

It is also poor form to use the ER for general care. That is the reason ER waiting rooms are so crowded to begin with, misuse. They must take everyone, even without insurance so that sets them up for abuse. True emergencies rarely see the waiting room.
Reply
hwichlaz 06:24 AM 03-11-2019
my daughter caught measles while fully immunized. But it took an act of God to get a diagnosis....because they used her immunization status to rule the disease out. That's pretty standard. So I call BS on the disease rate.
Reply
Blackcat31 06:40 AM 03-11-2019
I don't think parents should be sued financially but I do think they need to consider their child may feel differently when they get older.

Although it's time sensitive in most cases, I think it's alot like religion, custody, voting etc... there should be an age in which a child has a right to have input and be part of the decision process.....although that's not really possible given the time line in which vaccination are given.

I like what CH said about it because like any decision a parent or person makes, they need to be the one that bears the burdens of that decision.

I don't like the general idea that just because one person chooses X that everyone has to simply accept it.

Like most things in life, this question goes back to personal responsibility. Something very few people take seriously any more.
Reply
Blackcat31 06:44 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by hwichlaz:
my daughter caught measles while fully immunized. But it took an act of God to get a diagnosis....because they used her immunization status to rule the disease out. That's pretty standard. So I call BS on the disease rate.
I don't think getting measles after vaccination is unheard of as they do say no immunization is 100% effective but the fact that your doctor simply ruled something out (based on what was standard) without really looking into the situation personally would have me thinking about a new doctor.

I've really learned over the last year that you (general you) are your own health advocate and that finding the right doctor for you is sometimes the difference between life/death.
Reply
Cat Herder 07:20 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by hwichlaz:
my daughter caught measles while fully immunized. But it took an act of God to get a diagnosis....because they used her immunization status to rule the disease out. That's pretty standard. So I call BS on the disease rate.
It is usually 93% effective after 1st dose at 12-15 months, then up to 97% after the second dose at age 4-6. It is a two dose vaccine.

"If needed, however, the second dose can be given as soon as four weeks after the first dose.

Your child may need the second dose at a younger age if you plan to travel abroad. Infants ages 6 months to 11 months should receive one dose of measles vaccine before traveling." - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...n/faq-20125397

And now, I guess, the second dose will become recommended earlier since so many here are choosing not to vaccinate. That was why there were travel recommendations. We used to more protected here, now the US will become more likely to move towards what used to be *travel recommendations as *standard recommendations.
Reply
hwichlaz 08:37 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by Cat Herder:
It is usually 93% effective after 1st dose at 12-15 months, then up to 97% after the second dose at age 4-6. It is a two dose vaccine.

"If needed, however, the second dose can be given as soon as four weeks after the first dose.

Your child may need the second dose at a younger age if you plan to travel abroad. Infants ages 6 months to 11 months should receive one dose of measles vaccine before traveling." - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...n/faq-20125397

And now, I guess, the second dose will become recommended earlier since so many here are choosing not to vaccinate. That was why there were travel recommendations. We used to more protected here, now the US will become more likely to move towards what used to be *travel recommendations as *standard recommendations.
I am aware of the claims. But if they are using vaccine status to diagnose, that's not going to be an accurate number. My daughter was in kindergarten and fully immunized.
Reply
Cat Herder 08:39 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by hwichlaz:
I am aware of the claims. But if they are using vaccine status to diagnose, that's not going to be an accurate number. My daughter was in kindergarten and fully immunized.
I agree. I would definitely change physicians.
Reply
Annalee 10:59 AM 03-11-2019
Originally Posted by hwichlaz:
my daughter caught measles while fully immunized. But it took an act of God to get a diagnosis....because they used her immunization status to rule the disease out. That's pretty standard. So I call BS on the disease rate.
My nephew and niece (siblings 15 months apart) got the chicken pox while in Junior High and they were both vaccinated.??? I have seen this happen alot with chicken pox.
Reply
mommyneedsadayoff 08:13 PM 03-12-2019
No. Vaccinations are an optional form of preventative medicine. They may be required for some jobs and to attend public school or daycare in some states, but they are not mandatory to exist. The only way to not contract a disease or illness is to basically live in a bubble. Trying to prove that someone else's medical choices were made with intent to harm others would be a tough sell when it comes to vaccines. Most people are choosing not to get them due to fear of what it will do to them or their kids, not to purposefully contract and spread disease, so I dont think lawsuits will do much, but I'm sure there is a lawyer out there willing to try!
Reply
hwichlaz 09:01 AM 03-13-2019
Originally Posted by Cat Herder:
I agree. I would definitely change physicians.
We saw 4 before getting a diagnosis. We'd recently changed insurance and had to change doctors. As a new patient appointments were 6 weeks out so we were going to urgent care, seeing a different Dr each time. When we finally got in with our new family doctor for a new patient appt he said that's standard diagnostics here. The diagnosis the first 3 times was "viral xanthum" well NO DUH...chicken pox rash, 5ths disease rash, measels rashes are ALL viral xanthums, but they refused to diagnose which virus was causing it until it went into her eyes and the school nurse reported it to the health dept.
Reply
hwichlaz 09:04 AM 03-13-2019
Originally Posted by mommyneedsadayoff:
No. Vaccinations are an optional form of preventative medicine. They may be required for some jobs and to attend public school or daycare in some states, but they are not mandatory to exist. The only way to not contract a disease or illness is to basically live in a bubble. Trying to prove that someone else's medical choices were made with intent to harm others would be a tough sell when it comes to vaccines. Most people are choosing not to get them due to fear of what it will do to them or their kids, not to purposefully contract and spread disease, so I dont think lawsuits will do much, but I'm sure there is a lawyer out there willing to try!
Right, nothing that has documented risk can be forced on people. That's not okay in any shape or form. Since there is an entire agency dedicated to compensating people for vaccine damage, no one can say it's without risk...so it cannot be forced.
Reply
lblanke 09:46 PM 03-13-2019
The parents of the young unvaccinated boy who almost died from teatnus refused additional immunizations for teatnus. His hospital bill was around $800.000. I wonder who is paying that bill.

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/news...ies-of-tetanus
Reply
lblanke 09:52 PM 03-13-2019
Should we refuse to allow unvaccinated citizens to travel to areas where preventable diseases are prevalent? Or refuse re-entry or require quarantine upon re-entry into the United States until after a waiting period slightly longer than the incubation period for whatever disease they may have been exposed to abroad?
Reply
lblanke 09:58 PM 03-13-2019
Many providers here refuse to take children who are "not a good fit" for whatever reason. Is it ethical for a doctor to refuse to have unvaccinated patients in his practice, citing "not a good fit," as the provider sees newborns and people with compromised immune systems. If a provider already has children with cancer in his or her practice, can they (or should they) refuse patients who refuse immunizations out of a duty to protect other patients already being seen in the practice whose health could be compromised? Should the provider require unvaccinated patients to wear PPE (masks, gown) even when asymptomatic during flu season to prevent the spread of disease to other patients?
Reply
TwinKristi 11:09 PM 03-13-2019
Considering the great lengths theyd have to go to geno-map a strain and prove which unvaccinated child spread it... and what if its a vaccinated child who spreads it or God forbid the live vaccine sheds and its actually FROM the vaccine?
There are way too many variables to put any legal liability on someone.
Reply
Cat Herder 05:09 AM 03-14-2019
Originally Posted by lblanke:
Many providers here refuse to take children who are "not a good fit" for whatever reason. Is it ethical for a doctor to refuse to have unvaccinated patients in his practice, citing "not a good fit," as the provider sees newborns and people with compromised immune systems. If a provider already has children with cancer in his or her practice, can they (or should they) refuse patients who refuse immunizations out of a duty to protect other patients already being seen in the practice whose health could be compromised? Should the provider require unvaccinated patients to wear PPE (masks, gown) even when asymptomatic during flu season to prevent the spread of disease to other patients?
The difference between childcare providers and doctors is the duty to act. They can only mitigate risk, we can exclude it.

As a childcare provider, I am only required to report, advocate and provide a safe and nurturing environment. I am also further protected by my states laws of mandatory immunization for attendance in daycare/public schools. I am given the option of accepting waivers, but am not legally required.
Reply
lblanke 05:57 AM 03-14-2019
Some pediatric practices do refuse to accept into care (or drop from care) patients whose caregivers refuse immunizations, citing reasons that I have seen here as common reasons child care providers may terminate care 1) lack of trust in provider (some medial providers say that refusing to follow medical recommendations indicates a lack of trust in the recommendations of the medical provider) and 2) duty to protect other children in care. Interesting to see the correlation between early childhood care providers and pediatric practices, but not surprising. Many pediatricians are self-employed in private practice, just as many day care providers on this site are self-employed. Therefore, they can set the rules on whom they see in practice. I doubt many insurance companies will opt out of these practices considering the case above of the boy with teatnus. Immunization costs for their whole network were probably less than treating once case of teatnus in an unimmunized child.
Reply
lblanke 06:08 AM 03-14-2019
Upon reflection, this statement " Immunization costs for their whole network were probably less than treating once case of teatnus in an unimmunized child" is probably not , but the cost of immunizing is a fraction of the cost of treating the disease (realizing that not all immunized patients will get the disease).
Reply
Cat Herder 07:28 AM 03-14-2019
Timely news story: "A federal judge, citing an "unprecedented measles outbreak" in suburban Rockland County, New York, has denied a request to let 44 unvaccinated children return to school.On the same day, pediatric organizations expressed support for state legislation that would allow minors to get vaccinated without parental consent . " - https://www.wsbtv.com/news/national-...ZLuhsDg6UVc74o
Reply
Blackcat31 08:08 AM 03-14-2019
Originally Posted by Cat Herder:
Timely news story: "A federal judge, citing an "unprecedented measles outbreak" in suburban Rockland County, New York, has denied a request to let 44 unvaccinated children return to school.On the same day, pediatric organizations expressed support for state legislation that would allow minors to get vaccinated without parental consent . " - https://www.wsbtv.com/news/national-...ZLuhsDg6UVc74o
I read this yesterday and thought of this thread but I think the story is a bit different since the argument in it is more about discrimination based on religion not so much about vaccinations.

The school says that the students will be allowed back into school when there are no outbreaks in the immediate area within 41 (?) days.

In this case, I believe it's about protecting those kids that are not vaccinated verses 'punishing' their parents for not vaccinating.
Reply
ElianaBryson 05:10 AM 03-19-2019
Actually it is parents fear of vaccination as vaccines dangers can never be 100% over rode. Here we need to work more upon making our pharmacology researches strong where we educate parents and increase specialized pharmacology professionals so that more improvements can be brought to the field instead of suing parents because that would make the offended. It is not harder to learn any field at-least not the basic understanding development. 1 year or 6 months short courses should be launched.
Reply
Mom2Two 05:07 PM 03-20-2019
I do not think that non-vaxers should be sued or that vaxing should be legislated. I would rather see education not legislation.

I also don't agree with excluding from group insurance, unless the group is actually organized to exclude certain things. There are sooooo many dangerous life styles. Should people who are obese or who have speeding tickets or don't eat enough fiber also be excluded?

I find the reasoning of this article disturbing. The existence of social pressure is a reason to make non-vaxing illegal? That's pretty flimsy imo.
Reply
Tags:personal responsibility
Reply Up