This Article asks whether parents who choose not to vaccinate their child should be liable if that child, at higher risk of infectious disease than vaccinated children, transmits a vaccine-preventable disease to an- other. The Article argues that a tort remedy in this situation is both desirable and appropriate. It is desirable to assure compensation to the injured child and the family, who should not have to face the insult of financial ruin on top of the injury from the disease. It is appropriate to require that a family that chooses not to vaccinate a child fully internal- izes the costs of that decision, and does not pass it on to others. This Article argues there should be a duty to act in the aforemen- tioned situation, since the non-vaccinating parents create a risk. Even if not vaccinating is seen as nonfeasance, there are policy reasons to cre- ate an exception to the default rule that there is no duty to act. As an alternative, the Article suggests creating a statutory duty to act. This Article suggests that legal exemptions from school immuniza- tion requirements are not a barrier to liability, since the considerations behind those exemptions are separate from tort liability. It addresses the problem of demonstrating causation, and suggests in which types of cases showing causation would be possible, and when proximate cause is capable of extending from an index case to subsequent cases. The Arti- cle concludes by addressing potential counter arguments.

The COVID-19 pandemic during 2020–2022 raised ethical questions concerning the balance between individual autonomy and the protection of the population, vulnerable individuals and the healthcare system. Pediatric COVID-19 vaccination differs from, for example, measles vaccination in that children were not as severely affected. The main question concerning pediatric vaccination has been whether the autonomy of parents outweighs the protection of the population. When children are seen as mature enough to be granted autonomy, questions arise about whether they have the right to decline vaccination and who should make the decision when parents disagree with each other and/or the child. In this paper, I argue that children should be encouraged to not only take responsibility for themselves, but for others. The discussion of pediatric vaccination in cases where this kind of risk–benefit ratio exists extends beyond the 2020–2022 pandemic. The pandemic entailed a question that is crucial fo...

The 2015 Disneyland outbreak in the US unequivocally brought to light what had been brewing below the surface for a while: a slow but steady decline in vaccination rates resulting in a rising number of outbreaks of measles. This can be traced back to an increasing public questioning of vaccines by an emerging anti-vaccination movement. This paper argues that, in the face of diminishing vaccination rates, childhood vaccinations should not be seen as part of the domain of parental choice but, instead, as a nonnegotiable legal obligation. The first part of the paper formulates and defends two arguments in favor of unqualified mandatory childhood vaccination laws. First, government should not permit parents to put their children at avoidable risks of death and suffering; second, government should guard the common good of herd immunity to protect vulnerable persons. The second part rejects legal and pragmatic objections against such mandatory vaccination laws.

This Article addresses the role that the legal system can play in increasing childhood immunization rates. Part I provides a brief overview of the science underlying childhood immunization, touching on basic information about vaccine risks and benefits. Part II examines the legal framework governing vaccination, describing current legal policies requiring immunization of children prior to school entry, analyzing the legal authority for these policies, and the exemptions to these requirements available in the states. Part III reports and discusses data on recent patterns of nonvaccination and the use of legal exemptions, their interrelationships, and their connection to disease outbreaks. Part IV describes patterns and classifications of nonvaccination and the reasons behind parental refusal to vaccinate children. It examines articulated safety concerns, mistrust of government and medical professionals, preference for alternative over traditional medicine, and the invocation of claims that mandatory vaccination policies violate civil rights. Part V examines the legal tools available to address the problem, describing their strengths, problems, and factors to consider when choosing among them.

Vaccination is a disease preventive measure that involves introduction of a weakened form of a disease causing agent to the body to stimulate antibody production and confer immunity against specific diseases. Vaccines are crucial preventive medicines for basic healthcare. They are important for ensuring security of a nation’s health and play a role in reducing public morbidity and mortality due to communicable diseases such as measles, poliomyelitis, smallpox, mumps, rabies, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) among others (Thayyil, 2015 p.183). Moodlry, Hardie, Selgelid, Waldman, Strebel, Rees & Durrheim (2012) vaccination though vital to the human generation it is not free of errors. Some of these errors may lead to morbidity or mortality such example may be paralysis in some children after vaccination or even death. Einhorn, (2010, p.13) the health system is full of laws, ethics and moral that guide and protect vaccination provision. This essay will look into ethical, moral and legal issues that govern vaccination and ascertain that provision of vaccination should be carried out for the good of the person or child being immunized, whether this is legal or ethical or moral or all.

Although vaccination as a modern public health measure has been accompanied with controversies since its very beginning, today medicine has no doubts with respect to its benefits for individuals and whole communities. It is to be noted that vaccination has significantly decreased the incidence and mortality rate of a number of infectious diseases. When propagating vaccination, scientists point not only to its effectiveness but also to its efficiency. It is believed that preventive national mass vaccination programmes have saved billions of euros considering treatment and other medical costs which would be incurred due to the outbreak of a disease. Vaccination and other medications may imply certain unwanted reactions. Although severe side effects of vaccination are rare, in such cases compensation of injuries bears great relevance for the success of immunization policies and maintenance of the public trust. This paper attempts to clarify why traditional tort litigation is not conven...