Thursday, September 12, 2013

Professor Dorit Reiss on the Legal Duties of Parents Who Choose Not to Vaccinate

"If you choose to reject expert opinion and believe you know more than the majority of doctors, scientists, and health officials, you should not roll the costs of that choice onto others. The legal system can, and should, hold those responsible for harm if it is determined that their actions led to another person’s suffering."
Professor Dorit R. Reiss

Professor Dorit R. Reiss

A German boy named Micha died last June after several years of agony from a rare but fatal complication of measles called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). 

While still too young to be vaccinated himself, he contracted measles from an unvaccinated child in a pediatrician’s waiting room. Years later, SSPE erupted. One family’s choice not to vaccinate their child effectively destroyed another family.

In the United States, where health insurance coverage is more limited than in Germany, Micha’s parents could have incurred substantial medical costs on top of their incredible heartache and suffering. The question is, would it be reasonable to hold the unvaccinated parents liable for those costs?

In a recent blog post, Bioethicist Arthur Caplan suggested that in cases similar to Micha’s, the non-vaccinating parents should be held responsible. 

There are two arguments that can be used to support Caplan’s points and justify tort liability.  The first focuses on compensation for the victims. The medical and scientific consensus is that the risks of vaccinating are significantly smaller than the risks of not vaccinating.  Therefore, those that do not vaccinate are choosing the larger risk: an unreasonable choice. Since the tort of negligence was created specifically to compensate those harmed because of another’s unreasonable choice, the conditions of tort liability apply.

The second argument focuses on preventing externalities observed when parents roll the cost of their decisions onto others.  Several studies have shown that unvaccinated children are at increased risk of vaccine preventable diseases, and therefore more likely to transmit those diseases and cause others harm.  If parents are not held responsible and forced to pay when their unvaccinated child infects another, they will not consider those costs when deciding whether or not to vaccinate. However, assigning liability in these cases will encourage parents to include those costs into their calculation.

Read the complete blog post from Professor Reiss from Shot of Prevention here.

Share this Story

Share via Facebook
Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

Other Recent Stories/ RSS

Monday, April 21, 2014

Thinkers & Doers: April 21, 2014

Professors Osagie K. Obasogie, Sheila Purcell, Robin Feldman, James Lambden '75, Juliana Maio ’78, Philip Kan Gotanda ’78, Sergio Gutierrez ’83, Jeff Adachi ’85, James T. “Jim” Hammer ’86, Niki Solis ’95, Ryan C. Hughes ’10.
Friday, April 18, 2014

Moot Court Team Celebrates Winning Season

UC Hastings continues its tradition of excellence in intercollegiate advocacy competition and is currently ranked as the #3 Moot Court program in the nation.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014

UC Hastings Center for WorkLife Law Awarded $225,000 Grant from NoVo Foundation

Funds will enable WorkLife Law to develop information and tools that help low-income pregnant workers gain accommodations they need to keep jobs.
Friday, April 11, 2014

Thinkers & Doers: April 11, 2014

Professors Jodi Short, Marsha Cohen, Morris Ratner, Joan Williams, Guy Kornblum '66, Jennifer Keller '78, Tina Marroquin '03, Lisa Frydman.
Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Meet Four Law Students Who Want to Change the World

"Having students like this year’s California Bar Foundation fellows is what UC Hastings is all about as a law school.'' - Mark Aaronson, emeritus professor and founder of the Civil Justice Clinic.
Go to News Archive