The California legislature just fired an opening salvo at California residents who think that “science” is a personal relationship between them and a Sun God. The California Senate Health Committee votes, 6-2, in favor of Senate Bill 277. The bill removes the “personal beliefs exemption” for parents who do not want to vaccinate their children. From Courthouse News Service:
Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, who co-authored SB277 , testified that personal belief exemptions endanger children in public schools and that vaccines have been proven safe by health organizations across the world. Supporters of the bill include the World Health Organization and The American Medical Association.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
Game on, folks. Game on. You think that the anti-vaxxers got to the point where they can convince parents to risk the safety of their own children by keeping quiet? In Hollywood? The bill still has to be voted on a billion more times in California’s Byzantium legislation process. But expect anti-vaxxers to howl all the way.
And if it passes… that’s when the lawsuits will start. The rights of parents are strong in this country. Think about it this way, the only person legally allowed to smack you across your mouth are your mom and dad. You can get a reasonable discussion going over how much “force” a parent is allowed to bring to bear on a five-year-old without it constituting “abuse.” But if your boss punches in you in the face because you didn’t finish your TPS report before you went out to play, it’d be an “assault” and you’d have a “lawsuit” and probably win “millions of dollars” from your employer.
Why? Because parents are allowed to do almost anything to their children. There’s no ‘p’ word in the Constitution that specifically talks about “parent’s rights.” But that parents have rights over their children was clearly established by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters way back in the 1920s. Recently, the Court has pulled back on parents rights slightly: taking a case-by-case approach that seeks to balance parents rights and compelling state interests. One would think that keeping your un-vaccinated, Typhoid-Mary spawn away from my healthy boy would seem to be compelling enough, but we live in a world where some people consider any government input in health care decisions as “bad.”
And we haven’t even talked about religion. If you believe that Jesus is the only thing that can save you from a peanut allergy, how can you abide the school nurse sticking needles in your kids?
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
This is going to get messy, folks. Anytime the government and science conspire to try to make crazy people behave reasonably, things always get messy.
