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

          Wednesday, February 22, 2017

          ‘Always look for the helpers’: Meet 1L Michelle Human, AKA Miss Honey, Professional Faerie

          This little girl looked at me and she said, you're a flower fairy right? I said yes, I'm a flower fairy. She said, okay I have a wish, I wish that the garden in front of my house in Syria, I wish that the flowers could grow there again because right now there's fire and the ground is ash. I wish that we lived in a world where there's no bombs or bullets or fires, and that the earth was reminded how to grow flowers again.
          Tuesday, February 07, 2017

          Civil Rights Lawyer Zahra Billoo ’09 Is Fighting President Trump’s “Travel Ban”

          As leader of a Council on American-Islamic Relations chapter, she is standing up for the rights of Muslim Americans in court and in the media.
          Monday, February 06, 2017

          Hadar Aviram assumes the presidency of the Western Society of Criminology

          Congratulations to UC Hastings Professor Hadar Aviram, who is set to begin her term as the president of the Western Society of Criminology.
          Wednesday, February 01, 2017

          Statement from Dean Faigman: Deans Letter to California Supreme Court re California Bar Exam

          Today a group of 20 deans of ABA-accredited California law schools submitted a letter to the California Supreme Court, calling upon it to “exercise its legal jurisdiction over the California State Bar to adjust its scoring methods to bring them in line with the nation’s at large.”
          Wednesday, February 01, 2017

          Thinkers & Doers: January 2017

          THE RESISTANCE -- Haiku for Law Students -- Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudence -- A Populist Crusade Against Corporate Greed -- THE MOST READ HBR ARTICLE OF ALL TIME -- Mom bias at work -- Will Trump’s refugee "ban" survive? -- Alumni recording artists -- and much more
          Go to News Archive