Amazon.com Widgets

Should parents who don't vaccinate their kids be sued or criminally charged?

  • Yes, not vaccinating children puts other children and adults at risk, not just the child

    First of all, there is no evidence at all that vaccinations have any long-term negative effect. The only long-term effect of vaccinations is effective immunity to whatever disease or infection is being vaccinated for. Vaccinations are more effective in a population if a certain critical percentage of the population is vaccinated. Immunologists refer to this as "herd immunity." If some percentage of the population (herd) is vaccinated, then the un-vaccinated part of the population (herd) is protected from disease as well, since there are so few possible carriers of the disease that they are unlikely to encounter another un-vaccinated and infected individual.

    There are already people that do not have access to or knowledge about vaccinations, and every parent who decides to not get their child vaccinated increases the entire population's risk of severe problems with disease, with no benefit to themselves. Lawsuits and criminal charges are perfectly suited to address this increased burden that these parents are placing on society, particularly if it is proven that their child is the cause of an outbreak.

  • Yes, not vaccinating children puts other children and adults at risk, not just the child

    First of all, there is no evidence at all that vaccinations have any long-term negative effect. The only long-term effect of vaccinations is effective immunity to whatever disease or infection is being vaccinated for. Vaccinations are more effective in a population if a certain critical percentage of the population is vaccinated. Immunologists refer to this as "herd immunity." If some percentage of the population (herd) is vaccinated, then the un-vaccinated part of the population (herd) is protected from disease as well, since there are so few possible carriers of the disease that they are unlikely to encounter another un-vaccinated and infected individual.

    There are already people that do not have access to or knowledge about vaccinations, and every parent who decides to not get their child vaccinated increases the entire population's risk of severe problems with disease, with no benefit to themselves. Lawsuits and criminal charges are perfectly suited to address this increased burden that these parents are placing on society, particularly if it is proven that their child is the cause of an outbreak.

  • Yes, not vaccinating children puts other children and adults at risk, not just the child

    First of all, there is no evidence at all that vaccinations have any long-term negative effect. The only long-term effect of vaccinations is effective immunity to whatever disease or infection is being vaccinated for. Vaccinations are more effective in a population if a certain critical percentage of the population is vaccinated. Immunologists refer to this as "herd immunity." If some percentage of the population (herd) is vaccinated, then the un-vaccinated part of the population (herd) is protected from disease as well, since there are so few possible carriers of the disease that they are unlikely to encounter another un-vaccinated and infected individual.

    There are already people that do not have access to or knowledge about vaccinations, and every parent who decides to not get their child vaccinated increases the entire population's risk of severe problems with disease, with no benefit to themselves. Lawsuits and criminal charges are perfectly suited to address this increased burden that these parents are placing on society, particularly if it is proven that their child is the cause of an outbreak.

  • Absolutely. Parents who do not have their children vaccinated must be sued.

    When one looks at the First Amendment, it is evident that individuals have the freedom to freely exercise their religion, or set of beliefs. However, the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court have recognized that an individual's right to free exercise can be limited in public safety is threatened. For example, it may be an individual's belief to sacrifice humans to please their god or gods. This is obviously threatening public safety, and is therefore not allowed to be exercised.
    The argument is similar for vaccination. Individuals who are not vaccinated pose a great risk to public safety by compromising the herd immunity. Those who have been vaccinated are immune to the disease. However, that is not where the danger occurs. It is the immuno-compromised, surgery patients, and pregnant mothers that are most at risk to the spread of diseases, and nothing can be done for these individuals. To protect the public safety of these individuals, vaccines must be administered.
    Parents do have the right to refuse medical treatment if they are in good state of mind. However, they do not have the right to refuse treatment for the child, as supported by numerous Court cases. Why, then, is it acceptable for a parent to refuse the medical treatment of protection from vaccines? Wouldn't this violate these cases? Parents themselves could choose to not be vaccinated, but children must be to protect their safety.
    Law doesn't lie; vaccinate children and sue those who violate the law.

  • They endanger us all.

    Unvaccinated individuals endanger the health of others, those too young to vaccinate, and even those previously vaccinated in some cases. Its reckless and should be treated as a broken headlight or driving under the influence. U nvaccinated people shouldnt be allowed in public excepting the drive to the doctor to get vaccinated. We have hard data on which vaccines are safe and which arent. There is a basic list of vaccinations we should all be forced to adhere to in order to do things like attend school, get medical insurance, get a drivers liscence, etc.

  • They endanger us all.

    Unvaccinated individuals endanger the health of others, those too young to vaccinate, and even those previously vaccinated in some cases. Its reckless and should be treated as a broken headlight or driving under the influence. U nvaccinated people shouldnt be allowed in public excepting the drive to the doctor to get vaccinated. We have hard data on which vaccines are safe and which arent. There is a basic list of vaccinations we should all be forced to adhere to in order to do things like attend school, get medical insurance, get a drivers liscence, etc.

  • Not vaccinating compromises the herd immunity

    Look at the resurgence of dangerous illnesses in the past ten years-- all major illness clusters are centered in areas where parents have opted to not vaccinate their children. While I understand that it is their choice to not vaccinate, these parents do not have the right to allow their children to spread diseases to pregnant women, young infants, the elderly and the immunocompromised. The herd immunity is what protects those delicate individuals, and opting to upset the balance of the herd immunity because of a personal choice is dangerous, selfish, and a major threat to public safety.

  • Yes, not vaccinating children puts other children and adults at risk, not just the child.

    First of all, there is no evidence at all that vaccinations have any long-term negative effect. The only long-term effect of vaccinations is effective immunity to whatever disease or infection is being vaccinated for. Vaccinations are more effective in a population if a certain critical percentage of the population is vaccinated. Immunologists refer to this as "herd immunity." If some percentage of the population (herd) is vaccinated, then the un-vaccinated part of the population (herd) is protected from disease as well, since there are so few possible carriers of the disease that they are unlikely to encounter another un-vaccinated and infected individual.

    There are already people that do not have access to or knowledge about vaccinations, and every parent who decides to not get their child vaccinated increases the entire population's risk of severe problems with disease, with no benefit to themselves. Lawsuits and criminal charges are perfectly suited to address this increased burden that these parents are placing on society, particularly if it is proven that their child is the cause of an outbreak.

  • Yes, not vaccinating children puts other children and adults at risk, not just the child

    First of all, there is no evidence at all that vaccinations have any long-term negative effect. The only long-term effect of vaccinations is effective immunity to whatever disease or infection is being vaccinated for. Vaccinations are more effective in a population if a certain critical percentage of the population is vaccinated. Immunologists refer to this as "herd immunity." If some percentage of the population (herd) is vaccinated, then the un-vaccinated part of the population (herd) is protected from disease as well, since there are so few possible carriers of the disease that they are unlikely to encounter another un-vaccinated and infected individual.

    There are already people that do not have access to or knowledge about vaccinations, and every parent who decides to not get their child vaccinated increases the entire population's risk of severe problems with disease, with no benefit to themselves. Lawsuits and criminal charges are perfectly suited to address this increased burden that these parents are placing on society, particularly if it is proven that their child is the cause of an outbreak.

  • Are you kidding me?

    Of course not! Yes, it may wipe out disease, but isn't this america, the "Land of the Free"? We do this, we have excuses to take away other, more important rights. This opens the door to a dictatorship, and the only person who likes a dictatorship is the dictator. So until, I mean unless I become in power, I say no

  • NO! The decision to vaccinate a child is the parent's decision and parent's should not be legally penalized for making such a decision.

    The children and adults that are vaccinated are protected from the disease because they got vaccinated! Therefore, how does an unvaccinated individual pose a harm to a vaccinated person? The way vaccines work is by prompting the immune system in remembering and responding to an antigen from a virus or other foreign invader and thereby to significantly increase the rate of the immune response. Therefore if the vaccinated individual comes in contact with someone that has the disease, they should still be protected since their immune system was programmed to remember the antigen!

    Hence, individuals that are unvaccinated do not pose a risk to protected vaccinated individuals!

    Also, how do you want to prove if one single child is the cause of the outbreak?

    I think that exemptions should definitely be allowed. Some parents are opposed to vaccination due to religious or philosophical reasons. Those parents should have the right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, after all we do live in America, where people have rights!

  • No, it is a choice.

    No, parents who don't vaccinate their kids should not be sued or criminally charged, because parents have the vast majority of control over their children. The decision to inject dead diseases in a child's arm or leg is a big decisions. Parents should control that. It is government overreaching to demand that children receive injections.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.