243
submitted 9 months ago by Yezzey@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question..

If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

Is that unreasonable?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 60 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm personally of the opinion that refusing to vaccinate your kids should not be a choice parents get to make. Just like how you can't choose to starve your children, no matter how deeply and truly you believe that we can draw all our necessary sustenance from the air.

In Canada we have a legal concept called the "Duty of persons to provide necessaries."

Here's the relevant legal code:

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;

https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Failing_to_Provide_the_Necessaries_of_Life_(Offence)

I firmly believe that vaccinations should be deemed one of the "necessaries of life" under this article of the criminal code. Like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. You shouldn't have a choice in this matter. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not that choice harms someone else's kid, because that's actually beside the point. At a basic level, we as a society have already agreed that children's right to be properly sheltered and cared for outweighs their parents rights to decide how they live. The idea that there should be an exception for vaccines - something that can mean the difference between life and death - is absolutely ridiculous.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Excuse me, I'm breath-tarian /s

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 9 months ago

Parents who don't vaccinate their children without a good medical reason should be treated as any other parent who intentionally abuses, harms, mistreats, or abandons their children, simple as that.

If they harm other people on top of that, then that should probably count as attempted murder plus aggravated assault and battery, or some equivalent.

It's a shame that rampant wilful idiocy with intent to cause harm and mayhem isn't a criminal offence, though, because they should also be charged with that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 22 points 9 months ago

I’d argue that parents should be liable to the state, not the victim or their family. This is a societal issue, and civil liability won’t fix it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 19 points 9 months ago

I don't disagree with this mindset, but I do want to say that it should be on the plaintiff to prove your child caused the problem rather than the defendant to prove they did not. Proving a negative is damn near impossible in court.

[-] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 11 points 9 months ago

I don’t disagree with this mindset, but I do want to say that it should be on the plaintiff to prove your child caused the problem rather than the defendant to prove they did not. Proving a negative is damn near impossible in court.

If your choices raise everyone else’s risk, it’s fair that you carry some of the burden. Courts deal in probability every day.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

No, we can't start throwing out burden of proof when it suits us.

I've argued elsewhere in this thread that the solution is to obligate parents to provide vaccinations, just like they're obligated to provide food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. This is the basic legal duty of care that all parents have towards their children, and it should extend to vaccines. This is both a logical application of existing law - rather than requiring new law - and incredibly simple to prove in court. If parents are obligated to vaccinate their kids, all a cop or social worker has to do is ask for the proof of vaccination. There's no balance of proof to consider, and no knotty problems of untangling exactly how someone else's kid got sick.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Agreed - it's pretty unlikely that you'd be able to prove something like that.

I suppose you could try to apply precedents surrounding HIV disclosure, but I think it'd be a tough sell.

Edit: And to be clear, even in that situation, we're talking about disclosure, not actual treatment-related choices.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 16 points 9 months ago

It’s not an unreasonable idea. The parents should absolutely be held liable.

Exact responsibility would be virtually impossible to prove, though. Even a lawyer who graduated at the bottom of their class from a terrible law school could easily defend the accused parents.

[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago

If it can be proven. Yes. But there are too many variables to be able to prove it usually.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 8 points 9 months ago

Liable for what? Medical expenses, funeral costs? Expected life earnings? What about the homeschool/tutoring expenses of immunocompromised kids that didn’t catch measles because the were withdrawn from school due to fear of an outbreak. I’m not trying to throw out straw men to muddy the water, but where do you draw the line between someone’s actions and their consequences.

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility.

Maybe we should be. There are consequences to reckless driving and drunk driving independent of whether you actually harm someone because this actions are inherently dangerous to others.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 7 points 9 months ago

How are you going to deal with pesky things like religious freedoms and the Mennonites/similar cults?

[-] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 14 points 9 months ago

They are still free to practice their religion.

[-] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 6 points 9 months ago

And if vaccinations are against their religion? I'm not siding with them btw just curious how other people want to handle cult members in regards to holding them liable.

[-] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 15 points 9 months ago

I still think they should be held liable, this is a preventable disease.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 20 points 9 months ago

This right here, there's nothing preventing the religion from being followed. And being in a religion doesn't make you not responsible for your actions.

[-] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 5 points 9 months ago

I doubt they'd see it that way and pull out the ol' persecution complex but I agree with you guys. They can quarantine at least.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 14 points 9 months ago

“Religious freedom” doesn’t give people the right to endanger public health.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Fun fact: ancient religious texts don't have shit to say about modern medical practices.

[-] running_ragged@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

If they choose to not vaccinate their child, fine. But they shouldn’t then expose other people to their children’s infections.

It gets messier when they are communicable before symptoms are showing. But if my Sally and your Bobby were at a party with 10 other kids, and the next day bobby is showing symtoms, and then a week later a binch of kids at the party are as well, then they should be held responsible.

Especially if they had reason to believe Bobby had been exposed to it days prior.

Make your choices, but if your religious choices are that important to you, then account for how that impacts other choices you make, and don’t put other people at risk.

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Quarrentine - No public schools or markets, or public places if there is an outbreak and unvaccinated.

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 9 months ago

Ignore them when they harm society. They don't get the freedom to commit murder and they shouldn't get the freedom to not follow public health requirement just because they have some mumbo jumbo excuse.

[-] veroxii@aussie.zone 5 points 9 months ago

Gonna show my age here and I'm not from the USA, but I remember in the 80s the doctors and nurses would come to the school one day, we'd all have to line up, and we all got vaccinated with something. Pretty sure there was no parental consent involved.

We've gotten a bit too soft on some things.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] leastaction@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

No, they should just not be allowed to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

We're dangerously close to "it's illegal to be contagious".

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 5 points 9 months ago

this is the disturbing reality of the current attitude. People have no idea how important body sovereignty is.

[-] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think most people are ok with you choosing to not vaccinate. The problem is when you choose to inflict that decision on others.

Not vaccinating and not isolating yourself is violating everyone else's body sovereignty.

I don't care if you host diseases. I absolutely do care about you spreading them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

The most disturbing thing about reality is that we have morons opting their children and neighbors into preventable diseases because of absurd lies they read on Facebook.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 6 points 9 months ago

Not an antivaxxer, but that sounds difficult to prove. Even for mere liability, how would you demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that someone got sick specifically because someone else didn't vaccinate?

(Also I really hope small-claims court isn't the appropriate avenue for trying something as serious as infecting a child with measles)

[-] anonymous111@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I think there are a few issues:

  1. How do you prove kid A gave kid B measels?

  2. Why isn't kid B vaccinated? Because they don't need to be, group immunity. Well that is no longer true with anti vax so...

  3. Kid B then gives kid C measels, so kid B's parents are now liable.

  4. Your in small claims court. You have to prove damages. So you're going for loss of earning for an adult looking after the kid + pain and suffering. Is that payout going to be worth filing papers, legal advice etc.

You'd be better passing a law to mandate vaccines, but that won't be politically viable.

Just my thoughts - am not Canadian.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rodsthencones@startrek.website 5 points 9 months ago

It opens some weird ideas to the game. If you are unvaccinated, yet previously had the illness and recovered, do you need a vaccine. What if you've been vaccinated and still spread it. What if you can't have the vaccines because if of health conditions. Anger does not fix the problem. We need a compromise, not a rule.

[-] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

Kids shouldn’t be getting measles in the first place. No measles, no problems you described. No anger here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I mean, from a simple enforcement perspective "prove that you're vaxxed" runs into the same problem as "prove that you're a legal resident".

Access to health care, access to documentation of that health care, and the ability to produce it on demand all require certain amenities that marginalized people don't have. It's a rule that inevitably penalizes people for being poor.

Shy of getting people chipped and slotting your medical records into the same system that we use for criminal enforcement, the folks enforcing the laws will default to the assumption that you're at fault until you can prove otherwise.

[-] MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Felony murder, in my opinion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FalschgeldFurkan@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

If the other kid is vaccinated, shouldn't they stay healthy instead?

[-] bassgirl09@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

There are a few considerations to make regarding the thought process of "if the other kid is vaccinated, then they should stay healthy," even when exposed to illnesses that they are vaccinated for.

(1) Vaccines are not 100% effective. In the case of the Measles vaccine it is estimated to be 93-97% effective -- this is a very effective vaccine. So, if someone is vaccinated, then yes, they likely will stay healthy even if they are exposed to a case of the Measles.

(2) Not everyone can be vaccinated for medical reasons whether it is due to allergies to something in the vaccine or another medical issue. So, these people are forced to rely on what is called herd immunity (everyone who can be vaccinated around them is vaccinated, so the virus or bacteria will not be around to infect the unvaccinated person). Unfortunately, for herd immunity to work specifically for the Measles scientists believe that 95% of the population needs to be immune to stop its spread. This is because the Measles is extremely spreads extremely easily -- about 90% of people who are not immune to Measles will become ill when they are exposed to the Measles.

(3) The last point that I will make is that if a pathogen (virus or bacteria) is allowed to circulate in the population due to low vaccine uptake, then there is a stronger likelihood that the pathogen will mutate (change) to get around the protection of the vaccine. Then nobody is protected and scientists get the fun of trying to create a new vaccine for the mutated version.

Take what I say here with a grain of salt since I am not an immunologist, physician, or scientist. I just like to know the pros and cons of vaccines as well as how best to protect myself, my family, and my friends from preventable illnesses. I learned a lot of this information by talking to my doctor, reading from medical journals (Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature Immunology, etc.), and also checking major medical center internet sites for information such as Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, MassGeneral, etc. There is a lot of excellent information to be had from our scientific community to help make an informed choice - much of what I located was open and free to the public to read.

[-] FalschgeldFurkan@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Thanks, appreciate the write-up! I'm just wondering that myself, my question wasn't meant as an anti-vax post.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 18107@aussie.zone 10 points 9 months ago

Not all vaccines are 100% effective, and not everyone is able to get a vaccine (such as immune suppressed or immune compromised).

Even if the vaccine is only partially effective, it will reduce the viral load and speed up recovery time, which is very effective at reducing the number of people that a vaccinated person can spread their illness to.

To prevent an outbreak, an infected person must spread their disease to an average of less than 1 person. Having more people vaccinated is the easiest way to reduce this number.

An immune suppressed person can still be protected by having a majority of people vaccinated, and therefore unlikely to spread a disease to a person who interacts with them.

[-] FalschgeldFurkan@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That makes sense, thanks for explaining! I do agree that vaccines are the best way to contain a virus. I was just wondering this, how a unvaccinated person could pose harm to others, vaccinated or not. But yeah, it's better to not take that risk.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

To put it simply, pathogens are like roach infestations. You can do everything in your power to keep your apartment clean and tidy and bug free, but if your neighbour’s apartment is a spawning ground for the little shits, sooner or later they’re going to make their way in no matter what you do.

It takes everyone, working together, to make us all safe from deadly diseases. That’s how herd immunity works.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
243 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

12270 readers
532 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS