Should parents who deliberately fail to vaccinate their child,be charged for any subsequent care needed ?

People who ignore qualified medical advice,for non medical reasons,should pay.

Why should the majority cover the costs of the superstitious,stupid,or lazy.?

Maybe their kids could sue them for neglect ?

In Ontario,Canada if a student cannot prove they have had their vaccinations,the child can be suspended from school.However people can refuse the vaccinations if it is against their beliefs.I don't understand how you can suspend one student from school for not providing proof of vaccination but another child who is not vaccinated can still go to school based on their parents beliefs.How does that sort of logic medically protect anyone ? I agree that diseases that were once eradicated due to mass vaccination are making a come back. . It is fine to ensure the rights of others but when someone else's rights puts other peoples health at risk there should be some accountability for that persons choices.Health care costs are going through the roof and there is constant pressure to balance budgets.We do maintenance on our cars to keep them running well. We wouldn't go on a long trip without ensuring the gas tank was filled, tires had air and all fluids are at good levels.When we don't maintain our cars their is a cost to the owner not the automobile industry.Why would people not invest in their own health and that of their children by getting the vaccines. Nothing in life is 100%. Those who refuse vaccines are taking a gamble that they won't get sick but they put others at risk for their beliefs.The casinos don't help you financially when you gamble and lose , why should the already stretched health care system be forced to pay for someone else's poor choices.Freedom isn't free and nor is the health care system.

I think his evidence may have been sketchy and twisted to suit his own propaganda needs but under laying it is a very sound principle.

There was and is no excuse for people not being offered the one vaccine at a time route. But having opted for it, if they don't stick to the schedule for non medical reasons then they should definitely have to pay towards treatment for their kids.

Lets face it if they all thought there was a monetary component to getting the vaccine , such as a reward for doing it, there would be queues down the block!

There would be no way to determine those charges - you send a asymptomatic but contiguous child into a graduation party, and how many people become ill? They spread it to how many?

I think parents who do not vaccinate their child should be imprisoned on charges of Public Health endangerment and Imminent Hazard

I think that parents who do not want their child to have the 3 in one vaccine, then they should pay to have their child immunised themselves, as in single vaccinations. I remember when my son was small & it was a very difficult decision as so much news about mmr at the time but in the end I got him vaccinated.. ridiculous to see such an outbreak of measles when it can & could have been prevented....if a child is sick then the last thing I would be thinking of is who is going to pay for it as the child's recovery would be all that is on my mind..

In the UK, no. We pay to have a 'free' health service. If you start legislating about one thing, then anyone who drinks, smokes, over eats, steps out in front of a car, trips over and breaks a leg etc should also pay through their own neglect.

be a good slave, always defer to bureaucrats and corporations

more laws and fines, to fund bureaucrats and corporations, is always the best solution

govt loves you, and are here to help you

What's really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury

http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additive...

U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee

http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

Secret Government Documents Reveal Vaccines to be a Total Hoax

http://www.infowars.com/secret-government-document...

Infowars Confronts Bill Gates On Eugenics Vaccine Program: Exclusive

http://www.infowars.com/infowars-confronts-bill-ga...

No. You cannot legislate for all abilities to understand medial stuff, you can give better information. They should however be shown the error of their ways in the form of what may happen for their approach to living in a close society.

The last spat over the MMR was not helped by ignorant celebs and the press piling in and showing their stupidity. They should at least be held to some form of account.

I have to say no, although I agree that not vaccinating is the height of irresponsibility and even, as Rhianna says, tantamount to child neglect.

Other conditions caused by irresponsible and dangerous behaviours are treated without charge by the NHS (I note you're posting from the UK) - diseases directly caused by smoking, injuries from dangerous sports or from driving in dangerous conditions etc. Where would you draw the line?

And in the case of failure to vaccinate, it would be an innocent child rather than the irresponsible parent/s who suffered, should the parent/s fail to cough up. Parents who refuse to accept the need to vaccinate are, probably, very likely to be the same ones who believe they can treat serious childhood diseases with homeopathy and other mumbo jumbo.

Holly...words fail me. I'll leave you to Nate and Rhianna.

No - for the reasons PH gave.

@Holly: Vaccines can rarely cause serious injury or death. How rarely? Well, about 3,200 compensated cases in 24 years. That's out of about one hundred million births in that time, most being vaccinated. The vaccine court has a very low burden of proof, so 3,200 may not be an accurate number.

If not vaccinating your kid is the best decision you made in your life...I don't know what to say.

Diseases have a higher risk of complication than the equivalent vaccine - several orders of magnitude higher. Getting wild disease doesn't give life-long immunity in all cases. It depends on the disease.

Sanitation plays little role in most vaccine-preventable diseases. This is demonstrated by several diseases that have been prominent during the mid to late twentieth century in developed countries, only to decline after vaccines were introduced (chickenpox, rotavirus, HiB, Hep A and B, polio, measles, etc)

Even Dr. Bob Sears, a doctor very sympathetic to the anti-vaccine crowd, agrees with this point: http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/dr-bob-s...

Shedding very rarely translates into transmission, and even then, it's transmission of a weakened virus. It's like getting vaccinated without any of the additional ingredients. How are these vaccines, which don't cause wild disease, causing wild disease outbreaks?

Basically, your position is based on your wilful ignorance. I can't count how many times your nonsense has been debunked by facts and figures.

No, I've heard this argument many times regarding poor behavior choices. Following this approach, people with lung cancer would have to pay for their cancer treatment, those who do not use seatbelts would be charged for treatment after an accident, etc. etc. Probably about 70% or more illnesses/accidents are related to behavior.