Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:59:19.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free to Choose but Liable for the Consequences: Should Non-Vaccinators Be Penalized for the Harm They Do?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Arthur L. Caplan ,
David Hoke ,
Nicholas J. Diamond  and
Viktoriya Karshenboyem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Consider this hypothetical scenario involving a choice not to vaccinate a child. Ms. S has a niece who is autistic. The girl's parents are suspicious that there is some relationship between her autism and her Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination. They have shared their concerns with Ms. S. She then declines to have her own daughter, Jinny S., vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. To bypass the state's mandatory vaccination requirement, Ms. S claims a state-legislated philosophical exemption, whereby she simply attests to the fact that she is opposed to vaccinating her daughter due to a conscientiously held belief. At the age of four, Jinny goes on a trip by airplane to Germany with her mother. After returning to the United States, she attends daycare despite having some mild cold symptoms. Subsequently, she develops a classic measles rash, at which point her mother brings her to a pediatrician and keeps her home from daycare.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , Fall 2012 , pp. 606 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This scenario is loosely based on fictional Season 10, Episode 19 of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.Google Scholar
Jungkind, D., “Re: Tracing Viruses,” email to David Hoke, March 7, 2011 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
CDC NCIRD DVD Inquiry, “FW: ‘FW: Tracking Viruses,’” email to David Hoke, March 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Hunt, R., “Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Anti-HIV Therapy,” University of South Carolina School of Medicine, available at <http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv14a.htm>(last visited June 26, 2012): Shrag, S. J. Rota, P. A. Bellini, W. J.“Spontaneous Mutation Rate of Measles Virus: Direct Estimation Based on Mutations Conferring Monoclonal Antibody Resistance,” Journal of Virology 73, no. 1 (1999): 51–54.Google Scholar
Julkunen, I. Davidkin, I. Oker-Blom, C., “Methods for Detecting Anti-Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Antibodies,” in Stephenson, J. R. Warnes, A., eds., Diagnostic Virology Protocols (Totowa: Humana Press, 1998): At 154.Google Scholar
Center for Disease Control, Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine Prevention Diseases, Measles Virus Isolation, available at <http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html>(last visited July 13, 2012).(last+visited+July+13,+2012).>Google Scholar
Center for Disease Control, Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine Prevention Diseases, Measles, Laboratory Testing, available at <http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html*#laboratory>(last visited July 13, 2012).(last+visited+July+13,+2012).>Google Scholar
“Placing a clear level of certainty on this is pretty difficult… I would be making up percentages on this but would say 90–95% certain… assuming there was no one else the infant came into contact with that had measles.” Lautenbach, E., “Hypothetical Measles Question,” email to David Hoke, April 13, 2011; “I think the epidemiological evidence can build a strong case but I think certainty is not possible. if all of the epidemiological features pointed to the first child infecting the second, then I think the certainty of that is very high (>>95%) given that measles is otherwise such a rare infection in the US currently.”. Metlay, J., “Hypothetical Measles Epi Question,” email to David Hoke, April 13, 2011.>95%)+given+that+measles+is+otherwise+such+a+rare+infection+in+the+US+currently.”.+Metlay,+J.,+“Hypothetical+Measles+Epi+Question,”+email+to+David+Hoke,+April+13,+2011.>Google Scholar
It should be noted, further, that Mr. and Mrs. P might likewise pursue a claim for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, due to the personal suffering they would experience in losing their child. While such an action is certainly a viable option, it has no direct bearing on our argument that liability ought to be applied where harm has resulted from claiming a philosophical objection to vaccination.Google Scholar
Teret, S. P. Vernick, J. S., “Gambling with the Health of Others,” Michigan Law Revie First Impressions 107, no. 110 (2009): 110–113, at 111.Google Scholar
John B. v. Superior Ct., 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316, 324, 137 P.3d 153, 159 (2006); R.A.P. v. B.J.P., 428 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988); B.N. v. K.K., 312 Md. 135, 141, 528 A.2d 1175, 1178 (1988).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256, 265–66, 392 A.2d 1280, 1284 (1978).Google Scholar
John B., 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 324, 137 P.3d at 159.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Doe v. Johnson, 817 F. Supp. 1382, 1386 (W.D. Mich. 1993).Google Scholar
B.N., 528 A.2d at 141–43, 528 A.2d at 1178–79.Google Scholar
R.A.P., 428 N.W.2d at 107; Skillings v. Allen, 143 Minn. 323, 326, 173 N.W. 663, 664 (1919).Google Scholar
John B., 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 324, 137 P.3d at 159 (internal quotation omitted).Google Scholar
B.N., 312 Md. at 142, 528 A.2d at 1179.Google Scholar
John B., 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 324–25, 137 P.3d at 160–61.Google Scholar
Id., at 325, 137 P.3d at 161 (internal quotations and citations omitted).Google Scholar
Smith v. Baker, 20 F. 709 (S.D.N.Y. 1884).Google Scholar
Teret, Vernick, , supra note 10, at 112.Google Scholar
Prosser and Keeton on the Torts 266 (William Lloyd Prosser, et al. eds., 5th ed. 1984).Google Scholar
In re Christien M., 157 Misc. 2d 4, 21–22, 595 N.Y.S. 2d 606, 613 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1992).Google Scholar
Model Penal Code § 202(2)(d) (1981).Google Scholar
Teret and Vernick, supra note 10, at 112.Google Scholar