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

Canada

10675 readers
444 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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 59 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I'm personally of the opinion that refusing to vaccinate your kids should not be a choice parents get to make. Just like how you can't choose to starve your children, no matter how deeply and truly you believe that we can draw all our necessary sustenance from the air.

In Canada we have a legal concept called the "Duty of persons to provide necessaries."

Here's the relevant legal code:

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;

https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Failing_to_Provide_the_Necessaries_of_Life_(Offence)

I firmly believe that vaccinations should be deemed one of the "necessaries of life" under this article of the criminal code. Like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. You shouldn't have a choice in this matter. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not that choice harms someone else's kid, because that's actually beside the point. At a basic level, we as a society have already agreed that children's right to be properly sheltered and cared for outweighs their parents rights to decide how they live. The idea that there should be an exception for vaccines - something that can mean the difference between life and death - is absolutely ridiculous.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Excuse me, I'm breath-tarian /s

[–] leastaction@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No, they should just not be allowed to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

I don't believe people should be forced to do it, I think that they should be held liable tho.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 16 points 6 days ago

Its impossible to prove you caught an airborne disease from a specific individual.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Or their own. Lock them the fuck up.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If it can be proven. Yes. But there are too many variables to be able to prove it usually.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago

I'm assuming you mean that the kid that wasn't vaccinated wouldn't have antibodies in his system? But how do you tie that to "This is definitely the kid that gave the measles to my child".

Could have been that kid in his class that is unvaccinated. It could have been a kid he hung out with on the playground, or a kid he walked past in a mall.

There's no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that just because the kid in his class wasn't vaxxed, that he was necessarily the specific vector for your child to get measles. It's impossible. To many variables.

[–] malle_yeno@pawb.social 7 points 6 days ago

Not an antivaxxer, but that sounds difficult to prove. Even for mere liability, how would you demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that someone got sick specifically because someone else didn't vaccinate?

(Also I really hope small-claims court isn't the appropriate avenue for trying something as serious as infecting a child with measles)

[–] n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

Should they, yes, will they, not in the west.

[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think there are a few issues:

  1. How do you prove kid A gave kid B measels?

  2. Why isn't kid B vaccinated? Because they don't need to be, group immunity. Well that is no longer true with anti vax so...

  3. Kid B then gives kid C measels, so kid B's parents are now liable.

  4. Your in small claims court. You have to prove damages. So you're going for loss of earning for an adult looking after the kid + pain and suffering. Is that payout going to be worth filing papers, legal advice etc.

You'd be better passing a law to mandate vaccines, but that won't be politically viable.

Just my thoughts - am not Canadian.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

pain and suffering.

Minus this, that’s not a thing in Canada. You could seek future earnings if the child died but that’s hard to prove when they don’t even have a GED and it’s unlikely when the child is dead. (Also would take it out of small claims)

[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Same here. Your pain and suffering is like $40.

Crazy when you see US damages being in the millions.

[–] MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Felony murder, in my opinion.

Even if the child dies, withholding a vaccine would have to be made illegal. You need to be committing a felony first, someone dies, then get charged with felony murder.

[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 78 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Offering a generous tax credit for proof of vaccination ought to resolve the problem easily enough, given the simple-minded and grift-oriented nature of your average antivaxxer.

[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah, I'm gonna go out on what feels like a very sturdy limb here and say that herd immunity wouldn't be compromised if everyone who could did, and everyone who can't didn't.

And I'm pretty sure that we are:

A) not referring to this demographic in our thread

B) in general, ok with legit medical exemptions, see above for why.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Parents who don't vaccinate their children without a good medical reason should be treated as any other parent who intentionally abuses, harms, mistreats, or abandons their children, simple as that.

If they harm other people on top of that, then that should probably count as attempted murder plus aggravated assault and battery, or some equivalent.

It's a shame that rampant wilful idiocy with intent to cause harm and mayhem isn't a criminal offence, though, because they should also be charged with that.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 6 days ago

You know, we eliminated smallpox in the wild, and mostly eliminated polio, by giving vaccines. Fuck these moronic idiotic parents not vaxxing their kiddos. It ABSOLUTELY should count as child abuse to not vax your kid.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Completely agree. I said more in my own comment, but if you're interested, here's the relevant criminal code that backs up what you're saying; https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Failing_to_Provide_the_Necessaries_of_Life_(Offence)

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago

Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life

I'm not fluent in legalese, but that seems about right, yes.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I’d argue that parents should be liable to the state, not the victim or their family. This is a societal issue, and civil liability won’t fix it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›