Should Anti-Vaxxers be Arrested?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm referring to the ones who refuse to vaccinate their children, even when said child does not have a medical condition that vaccination would aggravate. These people bring fourth disease, disability, death and drain funds that could be used for far more important issues and yet their psuedo-science BS has caused immense harm to innocent children and adults. Should they be arrested for this? To me, willingly not vaccinating when you know you are medically capable of being vaccinated is akin to using biological warfare on people. It should be a felony. What do you people think?

I don't think arrested. That's going too far.

People are excluded from applying for school if they are not vaccinated.

I firmly believe in vaccination.

I'm glad I inspired you to make this post.

(I'm not actually anti-vaccination, that was a joke )

Last edited by StampySquiddyFan on 27 Jul 2017, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do think the medical profession should look into some of the preservatives which are used in vaccines.

Vaccines themselves very rarely cause serious side-effects.

They should also look into more "humane" ways to vaccinate babies.

Temple Grandin, a famous autistic woman, was able to find a way to "humanely" vaccinate cattle.

As do I. I believe anti-vaxxers should be arrested because their refusal to receive treatment that is proven to be much safer than "natural immunity" causes the needless death and suffering of people who for whatever reason cannot get vaccinated. Because they are aware of the consequences for not getting vaccinated, their actions are akin to bio-terrorism and must be thwarted as swiftly and quickly as possible.

Let me preface this by saying that I think the vast majority of vaccines are safe and beneficial. I am not anti-vaccine. Louis Pasteur is one of my role models (he discovered the vaccine to Rabies and Chicken Cholera.)

I find it a very distrubing idea to force people to vaccinate. People should have a choice whether or not they want to receive treatment, and that includes vaccines. I would even go so far as to say that parents can decide whether or not their children should get vaccinated. The only point that I would see the parents as culpable if they go out of their way to expose their children to the diseases for which they have no vaccinations for, all in the name of "building immunity".

Then again, I'm quite Libertarian, but this is a slippery slope. If the government can force you to get vaccinated, what other things can they force you to do? Sterilization? Oh wait, that already happened before (see Buck v. Bell, a very scary Supreme court case in the US).

I also don't broadly accept that every single vaccine is safe. I haven't looked at all of them, but the vast majority of them are, and I am quite happy for my MMR shots, thank you very much.

I really feel that should many people not choose to vaccinate---that diseases which were virtually eradicated would come to the fore once again.

Yes, it is an issue of government intervention in peoples' lives---hence, I don't believe arrests should occur.

But I feel mass refusal of vaccinations would causes a reversion to the public health situation before vaccinations. I find this to be quite dangerous, frankly.

I agree. I am normally libertarian on most issues, but the problem with the: "Vaccine forcing is government interference" argument is that not vaccinating doesn't effect just you. You harm others who cannot be vaccinated and one of the key principles of libertarianism is that so long as your actions don't harm others, they are acceptable. Not vaccinating harms others, so it is not acceptable to not vaccinate.

Well... not getting them vaccinated is roughly the same as manslaughter if they die of the disease they could have been protected from.

Seriously, they'd rather their kids getting a life-threatening disease than turn out to be like (gasp!) me.

Obviously, they have no idea who I actually am. All they see is a genetic disorder that will bring the end of the world as we know it. I once heard that there is no crime against stupidity, but there should be.

I also read that some vegans won't vaccinate their kids because they know chicken eggs are used to make the vaccine. And they think omnivores are the cruel and selfish ones.

While an ASD can be challenging, I'd rather my child have one and have their intellect intact, rather than be mentally ret*d or dead due to catching an illness that could have been easily prevented. Sometimes you need to choose the lesser of the two evils when the perfect option is not available. I wish people would understand that.

I have to disagree with you - not getting vaccinated does not harm anyone other than the person that refuses, in and of itself. It's the diseases which vaccines protect against which cause the harm. It would only affect others if the other individuals themselves are also not vaccinated, which is the choice they themselves made.

We actually have an example of what happens when there is mass refusal of vaccines. In Minnesota, there is a very large Somali population that is not vaccinated, that see a larger incidence of diseases such as Measles that vaccinated populations don't see.

Once again, I implore you to look at the Supreme Court Case Buck Vs. Bell. This is the exact argument made for eugenics, i.e. "Well, we can force vaccinations for the good of society, so why can't we sterilize people for the good of society?"

I'm not certain how this would be manslaughter? Could someone elaborate?

I think a Child Endangerment charge would be appropriate.

Child Endangerment (in the U.S.):
Child endangerment occurs when a person engages in conduct that places a child in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment. This can be through an act or omission.

Sadly, no. google "herd immunity", it's a thing.



(ps - that was just one video out of millions on the subject as well as many papers etc, someone posting one video saying herd immunity is not a thing does not disprove that it is)

As for not allowing people to do things that will harm others, countries like the USA let you buy guns so that's not much of an argument. I can see both sides of the issue really, it wouldn't bother me if anti-vaxxers were prosecuted, but I'm not going to write to my MP if they're not either. TBH I'd rather see the parents of obese children prosecuted before anti-vaxxers.

If people were actually responsible for their own vaccine choices and they were the only ones that bore the consequences, I would agree with you. But since the choice to vaccinate is usually made by the parent of a child, for the child, and not vaccinating generates external costs, like costs to the healthcare system with is born by everyone in one way or another, I shall have to disagree with you

I am aware of herd immunity. Once again, if an individual relies on Herd Immunity, and that reliance fails them, the only person that suffers from their decision is their own selves.

And the gun comment is kind of off-topic and non-equivalent, but if you want, I could open a thread in the Random discussion thread. I love debating gun control.




Once again, please see my point regarding allowing the government to make health choices for individuals. It's a Pandora's box that you don't want to open. Not vaccination does not necessarily generate extra cost - only if both vaccination does not occur and the person becomes infected, and the cost is only spread out depending on the person's insurance, which will take us down the path of potentially debating healthcare and insurance. I'd rather remain on the topic of the legality of refusing vaccines and the suggested/hypothetical reprecussions of refusing.

Let me throw another dimension of complexity: let's say I'm fine with the MMR, the DPT, my hep shots, but I don't want a Meningitis vaccine. Do I still end up in jail? Just curious.

I understand the concern. Though it is partly about the government making health choices, it is not just about it. I see it along a similar vein as requiring school for children. It's required, up to a certain age, because the child does not fully understand the repercussions of refusal. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made here. Should an intellectually mature individual have the right to refuse a vaccine? Absolutely. Should a parent be able to refuse vaccines for their child? You could argue yes, because they make other health decisions on behalf of the child. What would we think, though, of an adult telling a doctor "no, I am refusing to allow you to take out the spleen that may rupture" Maybe a bad example but I hope understand my intent.


If you, as an adult refused? What do I care? No, not jail. Not for refusing all ... or one. Refusing for your child? Morally gray....