Mennonite Measles in Texas

[Ken]

When it comes to negligence, they apply to anyone who has a "duty of care." Which in this instance is both the health care professionals and the parents. But not some random person on the street with no connection to the child.

As a science teacher I have a duty of care over the children in my classroom. I have a duty to keep them safe and educate them. The standards in this instance are things like making sure hazardous chemicals are properly stored and locked away, and making sure that the safety equipment in the classroom is present and operational. If I don't do those things I would be negligent. That same duty doesn't attach to parents who are not present in my classroom. At the same time, I do not, however, have a duty to make sure the children in classroom are vaccinated or protected from deadly diseases. That duty falls elsewhere.

There is no standard of care for parents to practice medicine on their children, and in fact, you aren't supposed to practice medicine with your own relatives. The only duty parents have to children would be to seek the advice of a medical professional if they are not sure what to do when their child seems to have a serious illness, injury, and so forth.

There is no standard of care for parents to arrange to have their children vaccinated.

Again we are mixing up "duty of care" and "standard of care" and how both relate to the concept of negligence. Go back up and read the definition of negligence that you, yourself posted.

[JohnH]

Again we are mixing up "duty of care" and "standard of care" and how both relate to the concept of negligence. Go back up and read the definition of negligence that you, yourself posted.

As I am not a medical practitioner, I have no obligation at all to comply with any "standard of care", and in fact I shouldn't be practicing medicine at all.

As a parent, I do have a duty of care to.. be a parent. That includes duties like making sure my children eat. It does not include arranging for my children to see a medical provider who vaccinates them, and never has.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Try as you will, you are not going to make this sound reasonable or sensible.

Are not 2 dead children and one dead adult enough?

[Soloist]

Try as you will, you are not going to make this sound reasonable or sensible.

Are not 2 dead children and one dead adult enough?

using fetal skin to study MRSA doesn't sound reasonable either.

[JohnH]

Try as you will, you are not going to make this sound reasonable or sensible.

Are not 2 dead children and one dead adult enough?

How many unborn babies killed in the name of "science" and "research" are enough?

[Ken]

Again we are mixing up "duty of care" and "standard of care" and how both relate to the concept of negligence. Go back up and read the definition of negligence that you, yourself posted.

As I am not a medical practitioner, I have no obligation at all to comply with any "standard of care", and in fact I shouldn't be practicing medicine at all.

As a parent, I do have a duty of care to.. be a parent. That includes duties like making sure my children eat. It does not include arranging for my children to see a medical provider who vaccinates them, and never has.

Again, this betrays total confusion here.

If you are a parent, the standard of care with respect to protecting your child against deadly communicable diseases is to get them vaccinated according to the published vaccination schedules. Which means bringing them to your local primary care clinic and getting them vaccinated. That is exactly what reasonable people do. It does not mean buying the vaccines and doing the injections yourself or otherwise "practicing medicine on your children" that you are not qualified to do.

And if you choose not to do that and your children die of an easily preventable disease like measles then you are, indeed a negligent parent. Does that mean you will be prosecuted for your negligence? No, not likely. But you are negligent nonetheless. And if you are claiming some religious reason for your actions that simply means you might be off the hook legally. But that doesn't mean you still aren't negligent if you let your children die for religious reasons.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Try as you will, you are not going to make this sound reasonable or sensible.

Are not 2 dead children and one dead adult enough?

How many unborn babies killed in the name of "science" and "research" are enough?

To the best of my knowledge, none. Do you know that the tissue used in creation of those cell lines were from abortion for other reasons. While I am morally opposed to abortion, they used tissue that would have been otherwise discarded.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Try as you will, you are not going to make this sound reasonable or sensible.

Are not 2 dead children and one dead adult enough?

using fetal skin to study MRSA doesn't sound reasonable either.

Where are they getting the skin? I am not happy at this kind of research, but it is not relevant to the issue at hand, and is the usual “whataboutism.”

[JohnH]

Again, this betrays total confusion here.

If you are a parent, the standard of care with respect to protecting your child against deadly communicable diseases is to get them vaccinated according to the published vaccination schedules.

No, it isn't. There is no "standard of care" that applies to parents at all about medical care, other than a general duty to seek medical help in the event of serious illness or injury.

The standard of care for a medical provider is to recommend vaccination to parents and provide them information about vaccines and vaccine safety.

That is exactly what reasonable people do.

There are reasonable people who choose not to vaccinate their children, and reasonable people who choose to do so.

And if you choose not to do that and your children die of an easily preventable disease like measles then you are, indeed a negligent parent. Does that mean you will be prosecuted for your negligence? No, not likely. But you are negligent nonetheless.

No, a parent whose child dies of a disease that a vaccine might have theoretically prevented is not a "negligent parent", and in particular, there is no tort of negligence under which they can be sued (which is what the term "negligence" is usually about). They also cannot be prosecuted, because they have not committed any crime or done anything wrong. Parents have a right to make choices about their child's medical care. In many states, the right to decline vaccines is enacted by statute.

[ohio jones]

The arguments about negligence and standard/duty of care have gone on long enough to see that neither of you are going to change your mind. Move on.