Can parents force their teenage children to get vaccinated? The Los Angeles school district recently made the Covid vaccine mandatory for attendance. What’s special about the Covid vaccine is that it’s supposed to be given out not just to first graders (who are fairly easy to be forced into medical procedures) but also to kids aged 12-17 who are usually not compelled to undergo injections against their will. Legally speaking, what can a parent of a 12-17 year old child do if their kid refuses to get vaccinated? Presume zero physical cooperation from the child in question. This question is inspired by a friend of mine who’s child flat out refuses to get vaccinated for Covid despite the parents pleas and who’s very stressed about a possible vaccine mandate in local schools. If exact location matters, I’m interested in the legal situation in Washington. I’ve found a lot of articles about small kids getting medical procedures against their will and a lot of articles about parents refusing to consent to their child getting vaccinated, but nothing about teenage children refusing to cooperate. How does the law envision this to be resolved?
Parents have very wide latitude to make their children do what they are told, especially when the action is mandated by law. Vaccinations for school children are mandatory, and that could include covid vaccinations. A child is not eligible for an exemption on their own (only the parent can request a non-medical exemption). Force can be used on the child to get them to comply with a mandatory vaccination, per RCW 9A.16.100. It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. However, that does not mean that the shot-provider is willing to tie the child down on parental say-so, so it is reasonably likely that a court order would be necessary. If the child has been legally emancipated, they are the ones who would have to consent to a vaccination, so their parents can't make them get shots.
You're under 18, so you're viewed as a minor under the law, and as such, you can't agree to and sign legally binding contracts. The TOS for the applications are agreed to by your parents by default, because your parents are responsible for you and have no choice in parental guardian-type duties, such as education. Agreeing to the software TOSs may also be done for all student users by the school with their software site license(s) and under an agreement with your parents; ask for and read any written policies the school has. And, you don't have a say in data handling at your school; that will be another school policy for data and network security, and hopefully a policy exists. If a policy exists, it will set by the school board and it will respect a variety of local, state and federal laws. That said, you can approach the school board and outline your concerns and ask to take tests and assignments with pencil and paper. But they are not obligated to change policies for you or make accommodations, other than established accommodations required by law, such as under the ADA act. Once you're 18, you can fight the power. Until then, you're a minor.
In the US, the most wide-spread proscription against a medical treatment (broadly construed) is that only 10 of 50 states allow physician-assisted suicide. In Washington v. Glucksberg (one of the states that subsequently made such suicides legal), SCOTUS affirms that such a law does not violate the Due Process Clause. Given a historical analysis, the court concludes that an &quot;asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause&quot;. O'Connor in her concurring opinion further states that &quot;There is no dispute that dying patients in Washington and New York can obtain palliative care, even when doing so would hasten their deaths&quot;, but this falls short of a ruling that a person has a protected liberty interest in seeking medical care. Cruzan v. Director affirms that &quot;[a] competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment&quot; (also noting that &quot;informed consent&quot; may derive from common law or specific state constitutions). Reciting prior reasoning on Due Process and medical treatment and referring to Jacobson v. Massachusetts (smallpox case), they note that &quot;the Court balanced an individual's liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State's interest in preventing disease&quot;. There seems to be a dearth of cases affirming a protected liberty interest in seeking a particular medical procedure. Were the court to announce a fundamental right to seek some medical treatment, that right could still be subordinated to the states compelling interest in preventing some harm associated with a medical procedure, with legal review being carried out under a strict scrutiny standard. It should be borne in mind that Congress does limit access to drugs and devices, hence there is no constitutionally-protected right to take LSD as a treatment for mental problems. To the extent that a procedure relies on a (not-yet approved) device, that device must be approved by the FDA.
Yes, maybe The legislation varies by state but s494 of the Victorian Children, Young Persons and Families Act is typical. A person who has the control or charge of a child must not leave the child without making reasonable provision for the child's supervision and care for a time which is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. If the child is 17 years old then the circumstances are such that it is not unreasonable to leave them, even for a period of days. If the child is 17 days old, even 30 seconds may be unreasonable.
Summary: there's no minimum age; rather, you must use the seat in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Instructions for reversible seats typically do not depend on age but on the child's weight and height. Arkansas law (AR Code § 27-34-104 (2020)): (a) While operating a motor vehicle on a public road, street, or highway of this state, a driver who transports a child under fifteen (15) years of age in a passenger automobile, van, or pickup truck, other than one operated for hire, shall provide for the protection of the child by properly placing, maintaining, and securing the child in a child passenger restraint system properly secured to the vehicle and meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on January 1, 1995. (b) A child who is less than six (6) years of age and who weighs less than sixty pounds (60 lbs.) shall be restrained in a child passenger safety seat properly secured to the vehicle. (c) If a child is at least six (6) years of age or at least sixty pounds (60 lbs.) in weight, a safety belt properly secured to the vehicle shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of this section. The key passage is &quot;properly placing, maintaining, and securing the child in a child passenger restraint system properly secured to the vehicle.&quot; This implies that you can put the seat in the forward-facing position only if it is designed to be used that way and then only when the manufacturer's instructions say that it's acceptable. In my experience this typically depends on the child's height and weight rather than on the age. For example, one manufacturer says of its seats [Convertible seats] in the rear-facing mode should be used for children weighing 5-40 lbs, with a height of less than 49 in. and whose head is 1 in. or more below the top of the car seat. [Convertible seats] in the forward-facing mode should be used for children weighing 22-65 lbs. and height less than 49 in. and can walk unassisted and whose top of the ears are below the top of the car seat. So if the instructions for your seat have the same criteria then you can turn it around when the child reaches 22 lbs. CDC weight data for boys shows that virtually every 21-month-old boy is heavier than this (note that the data are in kilograms and that 22 lbs is 9.979 kg). Therefore, the legal answer is that there is no minimum age; the requirement is to use the device &quot;properly.&quot; Follow the manufacturer's instructions. (Aside: the incorrect belief about the 2-year threshold could be a widespread misconception among Arkansas police. If this is so, and if they are therefore in the habit of ticketing people for having children under 2 in a forward-facing seat, then you could get a ticket. You might be able to convince the officer of the reasoning in this answer, but you might not, in which case you would have to take it to court to show that you were following the manufacturer's instructions and therefore the law. You will have to weigh the potential hassle of having to do this, including the likelihood of its happening or not, against the benefit of letting your child see the back of your head while you're driving. My guess is that you're unlikely to get a ticket for several reasons, and that your child is likely to be significantly happier facing forward, but I don't know Arkansas police and I don't know your child.) If you do not have the instructions for your seat, you should be able to find them online. Some seats are not designed to be used facing forward. If yours is such a seat, you will need to get one that is. Remember that complying with the law may seem more important because you're more likely to get pulled over by a police officer than to be in a collision. But in fact the most important consideration is safety. If you are in a collision you will want your child to have the greatest protection possible.
I think that is not a &quot;reasonable&quot; interpretation of the order, but that's separate from the question of what will be enforced. Focusing on the word of the order, No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer What does it mean to &quot;compel&quot; a person to do something? A court can compel a person to stay in jail for some period of time, and can order the police to use force to enforce that requirement – that's the classical example of compulsion. Nobody except the police can compel a consumer to do anything. All of the words of the order have to be given meaning, and it is not reasonable to say that &quot;compel&quot; is limited to &quot;actions backed up by police action&quot;. The government does not separately compel &quot;consumers&quot; and &quot;employees&quot; to do things. In order to sensibly interpret &quot;compel&quot; and &quot;consumer&quot;, this has to interpreted as including things other than &quot;pointing a gun at a person&quot;. The only sensible interpretation is one that includes denying service to those who do not comply. In addition, the series of &quot;Whereas's&quot; clearly indicate a ban on &quot;no shots, no service&quot; conditions. It remains to be seen in court whether this is found to be enforceable (via the &quot;failure to comply&quot; clause, exactly analogous to other emergency powers allowing restrictions on gatherings etc. previously).
Facebook can continue to gather and exploit data, modulo the requirements of COPPA, because it does not depend on obligating a minor to do something, such as pay money or dig a ditch. In general and because of copyright law, nobody has the right to use anything that Facebook provides unless Facebook grants the user permission. The user has no obligation to provide anything to Facebook – if it did, the minor would arguably be exempt from that obligation.
Could the new mRNA vaccines have come to market without any testing? No. The FDA still has to approve emergency limited approvals of new vaccines. At least as a practical matter, the FDA requires some testing to grant this approval, although not the full testing regime of a non-emergency application for a new vaccine or drug approval. FDA approval is the limiting principle that prevents emergency drug approval from being used recklessly despite a lack of civil liability. I know this from news reports about the COVID vaccine approval process and can't cite chapter and verse of the relevant statutes. If there are no legal consequences, what reason would pharmaceutical companies have to conduct clinical trials before going to market? Drug companies have to get FDA approval for every single product they make. If they act in bad faith to get emergency approval, the FDA will not treat them well in the future and could even revoke their authority to manufacture any drugs going forward. Also, keep in mind that vaccines are not particularly high profit margin products for drug companies.