| | Luke,
You said, "I would assume that rational people would immunize themselves and their children in a timely fashion." I don't know what that has to do with anything since we know that some people choose not to be rational. And they might have 'rational' reasons for not getting the vaccination (i.e., "I believe that the immune system in a person should not be subjected to vaccinations because natural exposure will result in an immune system that more closely matches the actual environment." Not good science, but it isn't raving lunatic, and it isn't faith-based nonsense, or mental incompetence).
Children have a positive right to be given adequate health care from the parents - which would include vaccinations.
All schools have a duty to ensure that children who might carry a disease (do not have the vaccinations) do not come to the school.
With adults it is a different story. Any use of force could only be justified by self-defense. If someone has a serious, communicable disease people have the right to impose quarantine on that person out of self-defense.
One could attempt to argue like this: 1) There is a disease that is known to be out there, 2) That disease is probably going to infect any person without a vaccination, 3) Once infected they will be a carrier, 4) Others infected by the carrier are at risk of significant harm or of death. Obviously, the key points the argument would have to make deal with the degree of certainty that a person without the vaccination would contract the disease, infect another person, and that person die or suffer significant harm. There would have to be a showing of immediacy. If some new disease agent, or some new outbreak of an existing disease became so immediately threatening that it was a different context than we have today, it might fit the self-defense conditions. I don't think it does right now.
Torts can attempt to handle a redress for harm done by a person who chose not to get a vaccination (after harm has already been done). But that seems very ineffective. Society, at the time of a threat, could protect itself, to a degree, by employer's and businesses open to the public, wanting to see proof of vaccination before letting a person into a building, or aboard a plane, etc. (like a night club that makes a person show proof of age to come inside).
Bottom line is that there are NO perfect sets of rules that will ensure perfect outcomes when we don't have perfect people. But the good news is that the more perfect we become, the less need we have any set of rules.
|
|
