It doesn't meet "negligence" under any reasonable definition of the world. There are pros and cons to vaccines, and it is entirely reasonable to choose not to use some of them.
I don't use MMR vaccines because I don't want to inject aborted-baby parts into myself or into my children. Do you consider that "negligence"?
It absolutely meets the definition of negligence under any definition of the word. Those two children who just died of measles died due to the negligence of their parents. It is that simple.
It certainly doesn’t meet the legal standard of negligence.
There is no legal duty to vaccinate one’s children, particularly to do so against one’s religious conscience. I prefer to spend eternity in heaven, not hell, and no government could persuade me to choose murder.
That is not the legal standard of negligence. In a legal context, negligence is defined as an act or omission that falls short of the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, leading to injury or damage.
That is exactly what happened here. The parents failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. And their children died as a result.
Religion has nothing to do with it. None of the parents has made any religious claims whatsoever. When interviewed they just repeated the same old tired and discredited anti-vax nonsense. Which is not the standard of care in this country much as you might wish it to be.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 12:04 pmThat is not the legal standard of negligence. In a legal context, negligence is defined as an act or omission that falls short of the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, leading to injury or damage.
That is exactly what happened here. The parents failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. And their children died as a result.
Religion has nothing to do with it. None of the parents has made any religious claims whatsoever. When interviewed they just repeated the same old tired and discredited anti-vax nonsense. Which is not the standard of care in this country much as you might wish it to be.
There is no standard of “negligence” that requires parents to vaccinate their children in America. There is also no standard of care somehow requiring children to vaccinate their children.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 12:04 pmThat is not the legal standard of negligence. In a legal context, negligence is defined as an act or omission that falls short of the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, leading to injury or damage.
That is exactly what happened here. The parents failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. And their children died as a result.
Religion has nothing to do with it. None of the parents has made any religious claims whatsoever. When interviewed they just repeated the same old tired and discredited anti-vax nonsense. Which is not the standard of care in this country much as you might wish it to be.
There is no standard of “negligence” that requires parents to vaccinate their children in America. There is also no standard of care somehow requiring children to vaccinate their children.
You are conflating two different things.
There is no law requiring that parents vaccinate their children. That is true. There is also no law that prohibits parents from feeding their children nothing but a diet of Coca Cola and potato chips. But doing so could lead to adverse health effects and would be considered negligence because that is not what a reasonable person would do in terms of child nutrition.
Likewise, failing to vaccinate your children against measles and then watching them die is also not the standard of care that a reasonable person would do.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 12:56 pm
Giving one’s kids Coke and chips isn’t negligence under any reasonable definition of the term (which is a legal term).
That is not what I wrote.
What I wrote was giving your kids NOTHING but a diet of Coke and chips is not what a reasonable person would do. And doesn't meet any reasonable standard for childhood nutrition. And will lead to negative health consequences and would be considered negligence even though it isn't illegal. If you disagree and think that feeding your kids nothing but Coke and chips is a reasonable diet for a growing child, make your case.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 12:56 pm
Giving one’s kids Coke and chips isn’t negligence under any reasonable definition of the term (which is a legal term).
That is not what I wrote.
What I wrote was giving your kids NOTHING but a diet of Coke and chips is not what a reasonable person would do. And doesn't meet any reasonable standard for childhood nutrition. And will lead to negative health consequences and would be considered negligence even though it isn't illegal. If you disagree and think that feeding your kids nothing but Coke and chips is a reasonable diet for a growing child, make your case.
Not vaccinating your children is not negligent, is not child neglect, and will invite no legal action against parents in America, and in many states the right not to do is protected by law.
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 12:56 pm
Giving one’s kids Coke and chips isn’t negligence under any reasonable definition of the term (which is a legal term).
That is not what I wrote.
What I wrote was giving your kids NOTHING but a diet of Coke and chips is not what a reasonable person would do. And doesn't meet any reasonable standard for childhood nutrition. And will lead to negative health consequences and would be considered negligence even though it isn't illegal. If you disagree and think that feeding your kids nothing but Coke and chips is a reasonable diet for a growing child, make your case.
Not vaccinating your children is not negligent, is not child neglect, and will invite no legal action against parents in America, and in many states the right not to do is protected by law.
Protest all you want. But it squarely meets the definition of negligence. And that is the appropriate word to use for parents who watch their children die of a disease that they could have easily prevented. Just because the law allows it doesn't mean it isn't negligence. Just like the law doesn't prohibit feeding your child a diet of NOTHING but Coke and potato chips even though that would be negligent too.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Noun - negligence (usually uncountable, plural negligences)
1. The state of being negligent.
“negligence while driving”
2. (law, singular only) The tort whereby a duty of reasonable care was breached, causing damage: any conduct short of intentional or reckless action that falls below the legal standard for preventing unreasonable injury.
3. (law, uncountable) The breach of a duty of care: the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation.
The only definitions other than 1 (which we can ignore) are legal definitions. There is no tort when a parent doesn’t vaccinate their child. None.
Likewise, not vaccinating one’s children is not a “breach of the duty of care”. Parents are not breaking any laws nor liable for anything if they don’t vaccinate their children.
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 1:49 pm
No, it doesn’t meet the definition of negligence.
From Wiktionary:
Noun - negligence (usually uncountable, plural negligences)
1. The state of being negligent.
“negligence while driving”
2. (law, singular only) The tort whereby a duty of reasonable care was breached, causing damage: any conduct short of intentional or reckless action that falls below the legal standard for preventing unreasonable injury.
3. (law, uncountable) The breach of a duty of care: the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation.
The only definitions other than 1 (which we can ignore) are legal definitions. There is no tort when a parent doesn’t vaccinate their child. None.
Likewise, not vaccinating one’s children is not a “breach of the duty of care”. Parents are not breaking any laws nor liable for anything if they don’t vaccinate their children.
Once again, negligence has nothing to do with whether you are breaking the law. From the actual definition you cited, negligence is "the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation.
Reasonable people vaccinate their children against measles and that is the standard of care that all public health agencies in this country advocate. And just because a court isn't going to prosecute them, doesn't mean these parents weren't negligent.
Last edited by Ken on Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr