UCHastings Instagram

"It all started with a field trip to an Orange County courthouse when I was in 6th grade." - 2L Elizabeth Lee #UCHastings
Instagram Photo Likes e_monster, masha.615, sr212013 and 2 others like this.
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

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Conference on Advancing Equal Access to Justice: Barriers, Dilemmas, and Prospects

Conference presented by UC Hastings College of the Law and Stanford Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School, November 12-13, 2015, in San Francisco, California.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014

5 Questions for 2L Elizabeth Lee

Born and raised in Orange County, Lee was thrilled to spend the summer working for a company that offered the quintessential Californian accessory.
Sunday, September 28, 2014

Professor Joan C. Williams Outlines Gender Equity for Tech Companies

By implementing “bias interrupters,” companies like Twitter and Google can even the playing field for women employees.
Friday, September 26, 2014

Thinkers & Doers: Sept 26, 2014

UC Hastings community news September 19-26, 2014.
Monday, September 22, 2014

Professor Charles Knapp: 50 Years of Teaching Contracts

The son of a well-respected local judge in Zanesville, Ohio, Knapp got his B.A. from Denison College and practiced law for four years after law school before eventually becoming an expert and elder statesman in his field.
Go to News Archive