this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
236 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10675 readers
419 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question..

If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

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 1 points 1 week 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 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago

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

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week 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 1 week ago

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