Should Parents be Charged?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by tecoyah, Apr 23, 2019.

?

Should Parents be Charged?

  1. No.....it's a personal choice.

    42.1%
  2. Yes...this is irresponsible.

    50.0%
  3. Other...I'll explain.

    7.9%
  1. Pipette8

    Pipette8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    1,076
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What? Euthanasia? They can all be treated if they had government programs to make early detection and monitor treatment. Not following the antibiotic regime to the end of treatment is the reason that TB is becoming multidrug resistant (MDR). MDR TB costs about $300,000 to treat.
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, with the smallpox vaccine, we all did have a mark on the arm. People over about the age of 50 plus or minus in the U.S. have a smallpox vaccine scar on their upper arm.
     
  3. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will admit that this is one of the toughest issues for me. Before I write further, my two sons (my only children) were vaccinated for childhood illnesses, except for my oldest who was not vaccinated for chicken pox (he caught the disease at around a year old, the vaccine was just starting to become popular at that time (late 1990s), and we decided not to vaccinate him for it, he caught the disease before it became an issue).

    I see both sides. I understand wanting to have the freedom to not be forced to have my children injected with a weak/dead version of a disease with the possibilities of life altering side effects (not autism, but others). I also understand the public health aspect of the safety of the population if vaccinations are as universal as possible (exceptions for kids with conditions that don't allow them to be vaccinated). It's a tough issue.
     
  4. Pipette8

    Pipette8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    1,076
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the rest of society is put at risk because of a disease that spreads as easily, and is serious as TB, isolation and monitoring treatment is the best way to protect the rest of society and to protect the patient too. We used to isolate TB patients while they were on antibiotics and nobody said anything about, "oh my personal sovereignty is being taken away". We understood that it was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease. It was the sacrifice of the patients made to protect the many.

    My son had TB when he was five. He got it from daycare. He was a sick little boy, and the isoniazid he took was hard on him. I voluntarily kept him isolated from the rest of kids for awhile so that they wouldn't be exposed. I would have been irresponsible if I had done anything else.

    Can't you respond to anyone without calling them names like "sanctimonious"? You're a piece of work.

    I would have preferred to not vaccinate my sons, but
     
  5. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The necessity of public health outweighs parental rights in this matter.

    Remove the children and sterilize the parents.
     
  6. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe because the conservatives have created laws to protect them?
     
  7. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please back that statement up with some actual facts or are you just lying?
     
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correction. Not decriminalized per say, but the offense has been dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor.

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/es...ades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

    Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.


    The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.


    Modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission, according to state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), authors of the bill.



    “Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a statement. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.”


    Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking.


    Brown declined to comment on his action.


    HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection.


    “We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said.


    Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.


    Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk.


    “I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”


    Anderson said the answer could be to extend tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases.
     
  9. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, in 1985, the vaccine manufacturers were all about to stop manufacturing vaccines, because the insurance companies would not insure them at a reasonable price. A bipartisan bill was passed to remedy that. It was co-sponsored by 18 Democrats and 5 Republicans in the House, 11 Democrats and 9 Republicans in the House. Reagan didn't want to sign it, but the moderates (GHW Bush, Howard Baker) in the admin persuaded him to. Please look things up before spouting off.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/...exports-and-payment-for-vaccine-injuries.html
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546/cosponsors
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/827
     
  10. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was a question, not a statement. Thank you for answering it.
     
  11. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,832
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no need to make the info public, it is contained in your medical history. This isn't Nazi Germany. Nor should there be exceptions for immigrants.
     
  12. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right! Let's just hope they're not diseases like ebola or we really will be in schtuck? It could happen.
     
  13. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet it seemed such a good idea at the time? At least the liberals thought so. lol Thanks for an informative post.
     
  14. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :shock: I hope that isn't PF's rudest word? [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
    Pipette8 likes this.
  15. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mine is on my thigh... I was to skinny for the arm.

    But that was not what I was referring to. Think 'identification of unvaccinated people'.
     
  16. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please quote, specifically, where I have used the word 'sanctimonious' elsewhere. You obviously have not read a great number of my posts in this forum, but latch on and believe what you will, while ignoring who and what I was responding to.
     
  17. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And exactly who has access to that information? HIPAA and all that......
     
  19. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess the question is should children be protected from dumb, stupid parents who have no evidence that vaccines are not the best thing for their children but prefer to listen to struck off doctors and conspiracy freaks. Perhaps you have some evidence to show vaccinations are dangerous?
     
  20. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope you lack the depth and warmth to be a ****.
     
    Montegriffo and cerberus like this.
  21. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually the question should be, "should other peoples children be protected from the children of those ignorant and irresponsible parents"?

    I say yes, and in order to prevent the snowflake parent uproar just do not allow their kids to go to public schools and if by chance the kids go to the Mall, make it a misdemeanor....Felony if another kid gets sick.
     
  22. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good points, but ultimately it comes down to who should make the final decision on a child's health, I think default should be the parent but where the parent is shown to be acting unreasonably then it must be the state. Most of the world agrees with this apart from the US, but it is your country and your decision.
    https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  23. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Measles and Mumps are the price we pay for freedom. Or so I have been told by dumb anti-vaxxers.
     
  24. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since parent's have sovereignty over their minor children, it's really not a question, so you judging who is 'stupid' isn't applicable. Do YOU have the right to tell someone if they should consume certain substances? How about grease and carb laden crap 'food', given to their children.... after all, that has an impact on the society at large.

    It is the parent's choice, regardless of what you may think. And bottom line, that is all that matters.
     
    TrackerSam likes this.
  25. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm pro-choice, a woman should be able to do what they want with THEIR body!!!! Just not with the other human being inside their body!
     

Share This Page