Social Question

ragingloli's avatar

If someone intentionally sneezes on the unvaccinated child of an anti-vaxxer parent, and the child ends up dying, who is more responsible for the death, the parent or the sneezer?

Asked by ragingloli (51954points) March 19th, 2019

As asked

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

elbanditoroso's avatar

The parent.

Sneezing is part of life – happens all the time, every day.

The parent is negligent for not having inoculated the kid to be immune against disease based pathogens.

kritiper's avatar

The parent.
A sneeze isn’t considered a deadly weapon.

zenvelo's avatar

The sneezer would be excused if the anti-vaxx parent asked for the sneezer to intentionally sneeze on the child in an attempt to “naturally vaccinate” the child.

rebbel's avatar

Bless them.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

But the sneezer did it intentionally.

kritiper's avatar

The parent. Like what @elbanditoroso said.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@kritiper: “The parent. Like what @elbanditoroso said.”

Or like that guy @kritiper said.

hmmmmmm's avatar

“If someone intentionally runs over a kid playing in the street, and the child ends up dying, who is more responsible for the death, the parent (who let the kid play in the street) or the driver?”

zenvelo's avatar

@hmmmmmm Apples and oranges. One would not expect that sneezing on someone, even intentionally, would result in a death.

Thee is a very real expectation that running over a kid, intentionally or not, will result in the child’s death.

It’s the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@hmmmmmm – but @elbanditoroso said it first :-) And with great pithiness.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@zenvelo – I’m not saying this is apples and apples. But I did interpret this…

“If someone intentionally sneezes on the unvaccinated child of an anti-vaxxer parent”

…to mean that the sneezer knew the kid was not vaccinated. In that case, we might be talking apples and crabapples.

JLeslie's avatar

The sneezer.

When I have shingles I avoid places with lots of young children, because they might not have completed their chicken pox vaccines. I know that’s not the same as purposely not vaccinating, but the anti-vaxxers don’t want to purposely hurt their children. Someone trying to prove a point by purposely trying to get a child sick is really horrible.

zenvelo's avatar

@JLeslie Although anti-vaxxers are often proponents of chicken pox parties, as a way to “plan” the infection.

Patty_Melt's avatar

It depends. Did Sneezer say, “mother may I?”

JLeslie's avatar

@zenvelo I often say I’m going to rent myself out for a chicken pox party when I have shingles. But, we aren’t really talking about chicken pox only here.

Many many people don’t get the flu vaccine. Just three days ago I had a plan to go by a woman’s house to see something on her lanai. That morning she said to me, “come around back, my husband has the flu and you probably don’t want to walk through the germs in the house, and he hasn’t been on the patio.” That’s what I want and expect from people, a warning that someone is sick, and that they don’t want me to get sick. I don’t care if it’s a cold, flu, or measles, don’t expose me, and certainly don’t sneeze on me on purpose!

There are jellies here who aren’t currently immune probably to measles or pertussis, and maybe some others. Not because they are anti-vaxxers, but because they are older and never had the shot or the disease, or because their immunity waned from the time of the vaccine. It’s not funny for people to spread germs around just because they want to assume people are vaccinated.

Plus, how is it this this mean person has measles, flu, or mumps to spread around? Are they not vaccinated?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther