Friday, January 28, 2011

Family court hears vaccine evidence

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes:
Court Upholds Decision Giving Parent Authority Over Child’s Medical Care Because That Parent Would Immunize the Child

The decision seems correct to me, because it is in the child’s best interests.
He has somewhat libertarian views about free speech and guns, but he endorses a family court trying to make a medical decision about vaccination.

I posted several comments there.

It is funny how some lawyers think that the court has to intervene in a case like this. A vaccination decision is far less consequential than many other parental decisions.

A reader responds to an argument that vaccines are in the public interest:
Absolutely, but why should the state treat kids in a custody case differently than kids not in a custody case?

Either make vaccines mandatory for all and eliminate all opt outs, or acknowledge the right to an opt out and then don’t discriminate based on that right.

How much of a right to opt out of medical treatments do you have if a family court judge can use that against you to take your kids away?
The mom in this case does seem to have some nutty views, but the court has no business intervening.

The same blog reports that the British court has decided that domestic violence includes "shouting" and "denigration of her personality" for the purpose of qualifying for free (welfare) housing.


RustyShackleford said...

Well, when the parents are sharing custody, and have irreconcilable views on an issue like this, the court kind of has to make a decision.

And I think it made the right one: failure to vaccinate a child greatly increases their chances of contracting any one of the diseases we commonly vaccinate against.

On the other hand, the risk that vaccines entail (and there's no evidence, by the way, that autism is one of them), are so remote that they're almost not worth considering in most cases.

One parent would do everything practical to ensure the child's physical health, and the other would not. Seems pretty simple to me.

Anonymous said...

Parents 'rights' means they are 'responsible' enough to choose what is best for their children including medical care, and in this case, VACCINES. Not everyone wants their children poisoned via vaccines, and opting out is the only HUMANE thing to do. So what about that? Please do the research on 'vaccines' is a billion dollar business for big pharma, and does little to protect your children.

Visit this lawyer website said...

I think the court has taken a good decision!! said...

I agree with Rusty