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?

(page 2) 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't disagree with this mindset, but I do want to say that it should be on the plaintiff to prove your child caused the problem rather than the defendant to prove they did not. Proving a negative is damn near impossible in court.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don’t disagree with this mindset, but I do want to say that it should be on the plaintiff to prove your child caused the problem rather than the defendant to prove they did not. Proving a negative is damn near impossible in court.

If your choices raise everyone else’s risk, it’s fair that you carry some of the burden. Courts deal in probability every day.

[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Honestly, I'd settle for disclosure, especially now that they're removing school requirements in some states. It would be worth it to me to know which kids/ parents to keep my kids away from.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Agreed - it's pretty unlikely that you'd be able to prove something like that.

I suppose you could try to apply precedents surrounding HIV disclosure, but I think it'd be a tough sell.

Edit: And to be clear, even in that situation, we're talking about disclosure, not actual treatment-related choices.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 16 points 1 week ago

It’s not an unreasonable idea. The parents should absolutely be held liable.

Exact responsibility would be virtually impossible to prove, though. Even a lawyer who graduated at the bottom of their class from a terrible law school could easily defend the accused parents.

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Liable for what? Medical expenses, funeral costs? Expected life earnings? What about the homeschool/tutoring expenses of immunocompromised kids that didn’t catch measles because the were withdrawn from school due to fear of an outbreak. I’m not trying to throw out straw men to muddy the water, but where do you draw the line between someone’s actions and their consequences.

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility.

Maybe we should be. There are consequences to reckless driving and drunk driving independent of whether you actually harm someone because this actions are inherently dangerous to others.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Im not a judge.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

How are you going to deal with pesky things like religious freedoms and the Mennonites/similar cults?

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are still free to practice their religion.

[–] 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 (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

Quarrentine - No public schools or markets, or public places if there is an outbreak and unvaccinated.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ignore them when they harm society. They don't get the freedom to commit murder and they shouldn't get the freedom to not follow public health requirement just because they have some mumbo jumbo excuse.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Religious freedom can go suck a dick when it harms other people.

According to the Church of the JustPulledANewReligionOutOfMyAss, our Chief Papa Ghost said I need to break your kneecaps then push you onto a busy highway: your sacrifice is nothing personal, but if I don't do it, I'll spend eternity being spanked by fire goats. Doesn't make sense to me either, but Chief Papa Ghost works in mysterious ways, so I don't have a choice, you see? It's my religion!

...except if I actually tried that, I'd spend the rest of my life in prison, cuz even religious freedom doesn't give me the right to kill people 'because God'.

At least not directly: I can still kill you without consequence by spreading a completely avoidable pathogen to you, but giving that scenario the "wtf?!" treatment is pretty much why OP made this thread, lol.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, Chief Papa Ghost had a kid out of wedlock with a lower-dimensional being, and it just so happens that he's made of BBQ twist Fritos and Rootbeer, so I'm gonna go commune.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We're dangerously close to "it's illegal to be contagious".

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

If there is no disease there is no contagious.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

this is the disturbing reality of the current attitude. People have no idea how important body sovereignty is.

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I think most people are ok with you choosing to not vaccinate. The problem is when you choose to inflict that decision on others.

Not vaccinating and not isolating yourself is violating everyone else's body sovereignty.

I don't care if you host diseases. I absolutely do care about you spreading them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (8 children)

The most disturbing thing about reality is that we have morons opting their children and neighbors into preventable diseases because of absurd lies they read on Facebook.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] rodsthencones@startrek.website -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It opens some weird ideas to the game. If you are unvaccinated, yet previously had the illness and recovered, do you need a vaccine. What if you've been vaccinated and still spread it. What if you can't have the vaccines because if of health conditions. Anger does not fix the problem. We need a compromise, not a rule.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Kids shouldn’t be getting measles in the first place. No measles, no problems you described. No anger here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I mean, from a simple enforcement perspective "prove that you're vaxxed" runs into the same problem as "prove that you're a legal resident".

Access to health care, access to documentation of that health care, and the ability to produce it on demand all require certain amenities that marginalized people don't have. It's a rule that inevitably penalizes people for being poor.

Shy of getting people chipped and slotting your medical records into the same system that we use for criminal enforcement, the folks enforcing the laws will default to the assumption that you're at fault until you can prove otherwise.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›