The authorities should not try to silence anti-vaccine kooks. lest kooks use the precedent to shut down scientific scrutiny when they get the upper hand.

On the other hand, a parent whose unvaccinated child suffers death or serious injury should be able to sue an anti-vaccine kook for malpractice, if he can show that he relied on the kook’s opinion. Kooks could shield themselves from liability by making clear disclaimers on their web pages and in public appearances that they are not doctors and are not qualified to offer medical advice.

But that can’t happen here? Think again.
The bishop of Phoenix excommunicated a doctor for saving a woman’s life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride
It is a pity that the Arizona legislature did not seize the opportunity to resolve as individuals (not as a body enacting a questionable law) to “excommunicate” the bishop by inviting all decent people to shun events where he was present.

I equate the Church hierarchy’s willingness to let women die with another religious rite: human sacrifice. The belief may be sincere, but it does not merit Constitutional protection, *especially* when applied to victims without their informed consent.

Hopefully they will still be dealt with by their state board.

Is it rude to suggest that if “incitement to commit malpractice” becomes a recognized cause of action, that it be applied next to Jenny McCarthy and other opponents of vaccination?