Can Parents Refuse Vaccinations For Their Children

[gigirle]

I do have kids and I managed to keep them alive to adulthood. We were always aware of what shots were due when. The courts routinely punish parents who don't get their kids immunized indicating there is some degree of parental responsibility involved. You have a little passport sized yellow booklet for each of your children you have to bring to school to get them enrolled

A parent can REFUSE to give immunizations to their children. Many do as they are live forms of the virus. Some refuse bc of religous reasons. I for one DID NOT allow my children to get the chicken pox one. I'd rather let them get the chicken pox as a child rather than as an adult (much WORSE as an adult) and a vaccine can't provide that guarentee. The problem comes into play when a public school can refuse to admit them. Home schooling doesn't require they get their shots.

[2boysmama]

I do have kids and I managed to keep them alive to adulthood. We were always aware of what shots were due when. The courts routinely punish parents who don't get their kids immunized indicating there is some degree of parental responsibility involved. You have a little passport sized yellow booklet for each of your children you have to bring to school to get them enrolled

Once again, you are wrong. Since it has been discovered that children can have adverse reactions to immunizations, it is no longer illegal not to have your child immunized. In fact, you do not have to have their shots done before school any longer. It is the parent's choice. You need to step out of 1970 for a minute.

[kist]

All 50 states have immunization requirements. Here's an example.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/VaccineInfo/index.cfm

http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/2370.pdf

[kist]

Doctors are the third leading cause of death in America according to JAMA, (Journal of the American Medical Association) so it's up to the patient, and always has been, to oversee their own medical treatments. Just as we oversee so many other things in life.

Contrast the medical profession trying to keep the records of 300 million people in some sense of order against one person keeping their own medical needs in order.

Granted the health care industry has taken even the simplest of medical self-care away from the individual to an extent not practiced in any other country in the world which, not surprisingly, produces the most expensive health care system in the world and one with a rather poor level of care.
(high plains native American men have lifespan of only 57 years.)

*http://www.google.com/search?q=docto...GGL_en___US219

[ashman165]

Doctors are the third leading cause of death in America according to JAMA, (Journal of the American Medical Association) so it's up to the patient, and always has been, to oversee their own medical treatments. Just as we oversee so many other things in life.

You're right. I bow to your superior reasoning that doctors shouldn't be held to account for their mistakes. Clearly, it's also the consumers' responsibilities to go behind their mechanic and check the lugnuts, braking mechanisms, steering fluid and tread depth. These are also causes of death in the U.S. So, by your reasoning, the American consumer should have no faith in anything of which they're party and should, consequently, do it all themselves.

So, dear readers, please go finish out your doctorates in pediatrics (so if you have kids), internal medicine (we all get colds and the flu), and geriatrics (if you're competent at the other two doctorates, this one might one day come in handy - assuming no mechanics kills you).

Be reasonable. Most people are just what you'd expect: average. I have my children's shot records because I asked for them. As a person who's not completely ignorant of the medical sciences, I keep careful tabs on all such related matters.

Let's say he had the shot records. If he had them, guess where he got them? You get a bonus star if you guessed "the doctor's office where the kids got the shots in the first place". So, now he has a copy of them which the doctor and his/her nurse already has. Are we to believe that his copy would somehow have been easier to read than theirs considering they're the ones who gave him his?

Or should we tend to think that perhaps his doctor and his/her staff are at least minimally competent that they can read?

[2boysmama]

All 50 states have immunization requirements. Here's an example.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/VaccineInfo/index.cfm

http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/2370.pdf

These are not legal requirements. You cannot legally require any parent to do anything to their child. Inoculations are now a choice. A school cannot deny a child entry due to lack of inoculations. There are now laws protecting parents that choose not to have certain things done.

You can say this was our fault as much as you want. It still does not change the fact that legal steps were skipped. Steps that my husband had no way of knowing existed because this was the first time that he has taken my son to a physical assessment.


Kindly remove yourself unless you have factual legal input and not opinions about my parenting. If I wanted that, I would have gone to a parenting forum.

[LawResearcherMissy]

These are not legal requirements. You cannot legally require any parent to do anything to their child.

Both you AND Kist are incorrect.

Some vaccinations are, in fact, required by law, depending on the state and your child CAN be denied entrance to school if s/he is unvaxed. Not all states require all vaccinations or even any at all. The laws are state specific, and exemptions generally need to be of the "religious reasons" or "the kid will die from the vax" variety.

The question at hand is not whether or not you are required to vax your kids, the question at hand is whether or not your child's doctor was negligent.

You've already been told by knowledgeable people what you need to do, here and here. Nevermind Kist, and go do that.

[kist]

No need to get emotional or defensive about this - I was not picking on you and I agree the doctor is an ass. He should have caught this error. However there ARE stringent rules that apply to more serious vaccinations like TB that would not allow such errors. I was merely stating how I felt the court would rule about your situation


Immunization has been challenged multiple times and not a single case has been successful. The state retains all police power over infectious disease and have the power to hold you down and force you to be immunized, and if you get sick anyway they have the right to hold you in a cell without habeas corpus for as long as they want - the fact that they don't do that doesn't mean they can't. Because they have in the past.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25; 1905.
The federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/s...ne/PHLaw03.htm

[BOR]

No need to get emotional or defensive about this - I was not picking on you and I agree the doctor is an ass. He should have caught this error. However there ARE stringent rules that apply to more serious vaccinations like TB that would not allow such errors. I was merely stating how I felt the court would rule about your situation


Immunization has been challenged multiple times and not a single case has been successful. The state retains all police power over infectious disease and have the power to hold you down and force you to be immunized, and if you get sick anyway they have the right to hold you in a cell without habeas corpus for as long as they want - the fact that they don't do that doesn't mean they can't. Because they have in the past.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25; 1905.
The federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/s...ne/PHLaw03.htm

I was ready to post the Jacobson case, as I have it in my notes.

As far as holding in a cell, arrested on what charge?

Aside from that, a HC Petition MUST be entertained by a court of jurisdiction, if a person is held contrary to the Constitution.

[kist]

When I said hold you in a cell I was referring to institutions like the Waverly Hills Sanitarium and /or quarantine law you are not under arrest but are detained nonetheless. Because the detention is civil not criminal HC law doesn't apply.