Compensating the victims of failure to vaccinate : what are the options?

This Article asks whether parents who choose not to vaccinate their child should be liable if that child, at higher risk of infectious disease than vaccinated children, transmits a vaccine-preventable disease to another. The Article argues that a tort remedy in this situation is both desirable and a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cornell journal of law and public policy. - 1993. - 23(2014), 3 vom: 05., Seite 595-633
1. Verfasser: Reiss, Dorit Rubinstein (VerfasserIn)
Format: Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2014
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Cornell journal of law and public policy
Schlagworte:Journal Article
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 NLM24292784X
003 DE-627
005 20250217154426.0
007 tu
008 231224s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c
028 5 2 |a pubmed25n0809.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM24292784X 
035 |a (NLM)25330552 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Reiss, Dorit Rubinstein  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Compensating the victims of failure to vaccinate  |b what are the options? 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen  |b n  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Band  |b nc  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 03.11.2014 
500 |a Date Revised 02.12.2018 
500 |a published: Print 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a This Article asks whether parents who choose not to vaccinate their child should be liable if that child, at higher risk of infectious disease than vaccinated children, transmits a vaccine-preventable disease to another. The Article argues that a tort remedy in this situation is both desirable and appropriate. It is desirable to assure compensation to the injured child and the family, who should not have to face the insult of financial ruin on top of the injury from the disease. It is appropriate to require that a family that chooses not to vaccinate a child fully internalizes the costs of that decision, and does not pass it on to others. This Article argues there should be a duty to act in the aforementioned situation, since the non-vaccinating parents create a risk. Even if not vaccinating is seen as nonfeasance, there are policy reasons to create an exception to the default rule that there is no duty to act. As an alternative, the Article suggests creating a statutory duty to act. This Article suggests that legal exemptions from school immunization requirements are not a barrier to liability, since the considerations behind those exemptions are separate from tort liability. It addresses the problem of demonstrating causation, and suggests in which types of cases showing causation would be possible, and when proximate cause is capable of extending from an index case to subsequent cases. The Article concludes by addressing potential counter arguments 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Cornell journal of law and public policy  |d 1993  |g 23(2014), 3 vom: 05., Seite 595-633  |w (DE-627)NLM098274155  |x 1069-0565  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:23  |g year:2014  |g number:3  |g day:05  |g pages:595-633 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 23  |j 2014  |e 3  |b 05  |h 595-633