I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

Is that unreasonable?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 3 points 10 months ago (6 children)

How are you going to deal with pesky things like religious freedoms and the Mennonites/similar cults?

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They are still free to practice their religion.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

And if vaccinations are against their religion? I'm not siding with them btw just curious how other people want to handle cult members in regards to holding them liable.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I still think they should be held liable, this is a preventable disease.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This right here, there's nothing preventing the religion from being followed. And being in a religion doesn't make you not responsible for your actions.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 5 points 10 months ago

I doubt they'd see it that way and pull out the ol' persecution complex but I agree with you guys. They can quarantine at least.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 14 points 10 months ago

“Religious freedom” doesn’t give people the right to endanger public health.

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

If they choose to not vaccinate their child, fine. But they shouldn’t then expose other people to their children’s infections.

It gets messier when they are communicable before symptoms are showing. But if my Sally and your Bobby were at a party with 10 other kids, and the next day bobby is showing symtoms, and then a week later a binch of kids at the party are as well, then they should be held responsible.

Especially if they had reason to believe Bobby had been exposed to it days prior.

Make your choices, but if your religious choices are that important to you, then account for how that impacts other choices you make, and don’t put other people at risk.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago

Fun fact: ancient religious texts don't have shit to say about modern medical practices.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

Quarrentine - No public schools or markets, or public places if there is an outbreak and unvaccinated.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ignore them when they harm society. They don't get the freedom to commit murder and they shouldn't get the freedom to not follow public health requirement just because they have some mumbo jumbo excuse.

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Gonna show my age here and I'm not from the USA, but I remember in the 80s the doctors and nurses would come to the school one day, we'd all have to line up, and we all got vaccinated with something. Pretty sure there was no parental consent involved.

We've gotten a bit too soft on some things.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

I got those needle parades in the 90's in the area I grew up in (Atlantic Canada), in much the same manner.

It wasn't a choice for us and we didn't have outbreaks.

[–] yannic@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

These Mennonites?

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 1 points 10 months ago

You keep them out of public schools to reduce the chance of them exposing other people as much as possible. Their co-religionists aren't likely to press charges, and many of these extreme religious groups don't want their kids in mainstream schools anyway.

In other words, you can use government-funded schools or you can refuse vaccination (and pay for your kids to attend a private school that allows unvaccinated students, or homeschool them and do the work yourself). You can't have both. That's how school vaccine mandates are supposed to work in the first place. We've just gotten way too lax about upholding and enforcing them.