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.

          Go to News Archive

          Share this Story

          Share via Facebook
          Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

          Other Recent Stories/ RSS

          Friday, May 18, 2018

          UC Hastings Students Speak at UN Human Rights Council in Geneva

          Members of the Hastings Human Rights and International Law Organization attended the 37th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to meet diplomats, engage in discussions on human rights issues, and deliver advocacy statements during proceedings.
          Wednesday, May 09, 2018

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Champion for Justice and Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar, is UC Hastings Law's 2018 Commencement Speaker

          Litigation Trial Lawyers Hall of Famer and UC Hastings Alumnus, Class of 1964, to keynote the College’s 137th Commencement
          Friday, May 04, 2018

          Blek le Rat, “The Godfather” of Stencil Graffiti, Contributes Installation at UC Hastings

          The innovative street artist is taking to the streets with works throughout San Francisco to promote a rare North American exhibition.
          Friday, May 04, 2018

          UC Hastings Professor Veena Dubal’s Work Plays Role in California Supreme Court Ruling

          “The Dynamex Decision” creates a major change in the landscape for California’s gig economy and follows the path of Professor Dubal’s analysis from her scholarly work.
          Wednesday, May 02, 2018

          Thinkers & Doers: April 2018

          Professor Dubal cited in the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision – Professor Aviram discusses “Sanctuary City” litigation outside the Ninth Circuit – Ellen DeGeneres asks Kamala Harris about 2020 presidential aspirations – How Asylum Works and Doesn’t Work – Professor Ball earns national recognition with 2018 Shanara Gilbert Award – Highlights from the Spring Soirée – and much more
          Go to News Archive