• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Supreme Court Rules on Vaccine Case

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,005
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Supreme Court rules against parents in vaccine case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the parents of a child who suffered seizures after a routine vaccination cannot sue the drugmaker.

By a 6-2 vote, the justices said a 1986 law that set up a special court and compensation fund for injuries stemming from vaccines bars all design-defect lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which along with the U.S. government had urged the court to bar such lawsuits, said the decision will enhance the national immunization system and ensure "that vaccines will continue to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in this country."

Sotomayor and Ginsburg were in the minority, while Kagan recused herself.

I don't know about the constitutional issues, but the result is the one I would agree with.
 
Interesting language from the Court's opinion:
For the last 66 years, vaccines have been subject to the same federal premarket approval process as prescription drugs, and compensation for vaccine-related injuries has been left largely to the States. Under that regime, the elimination of communicable diseases through vaccination became "one of the greatest achievements" of public health in the 20th century. But in the 1970's and 1980's vaccines became, one might say, victims of their own success. They had been so effective in preventing infectious diseases that the public became much less alarmed at the threat of those diseases, and much more concerned with the risk of injury from the vaccines themselves.
 
They can get compensated if there's an adverse reaction.
There's a dedicated system for it.

Yes, there is a special vaccine court. If your dishwasher is defective and injures you, you can sue. If a vaccine makes you sick, you can't. Vaccines are the only product given this protection.
 
Yes, there is a special vaccine court. If your dishwasher is defective and injures you, you can sue. If a vaccine makes you sick, you can't. Vaccines are the only product given this protection.

Which is a reasonable, conscious decision to make.


World A, with massive lawsuits might greatly slow the introduction of new vaccines.

World B is a little more slap-happy in the introduction of vaccines.



Which world saves more lives, and creates less misery? I submit just about everything humans do developing any medicine or treatments should fall under this rule.
 
Which is a reasonable, conscious decision to make.


World A, with massive lawsuits might greatly slow the introduction of new vaccines.

World B is a little more slap-happy in the introduction of vaccines.



Which world saves more lives, and creates less misery? I submit just about everything humans do developing any medicine or treatments should fall under this rule.

But why doesn't any other medicine or treatment fall under this rule? What about other life-saving drugs such as penicillin or cancer drugs, why don't they get this protection? Big Pharma gets sued all the time but that doesn't stop the introduction of new medications.

Childhood vaccines don't cause autism and very few children die or injured by them, so why does this one product warrent this special treatment?
 
But why doesn't any other medicine or treatment fall under this rule? What about other life-saving drugs such as penicillin or cancer drugs, why don't they get this protection? Big Pharma gets sued all the time but that doesn't stop the introduction of new medications.

Childhood vaccines don't cause autism and very few children die or injured by them, so why does this one product warrent this special treatment?
Because ideally 100% of the population should be vaccinated, especially for childhood diseases, as opposed to less than 1% which typically use other drugs. And if Joe Blow decides he doesn't want to take his heart medication it doesn't affect anyone else, not so if half the population decides they don't want to get vaccinated.

Some vaccines are now made only by a single company, the others don't want to assume the risk of lawsuits. Perhaps this ruling will encourage others to manufacture vaccines.

There is no such thing as a perfect drug, name a vaccine and someone will have a bad reaction to it. People die from reactions to common foods and insect bites, nothing can ever be 100% safe and not all reactions are foreseeable.
 
But why doesn't any other medicine or treatment fall under this rule?

Because vaccines alone have such massive external benefits to society as a whole due to herd immunity effects.
 
But why doesn't any other medicine or treatment fall under this rule? What about other life-saving drugs such as penicillin or cancer drugs, why don't they get this protection? Big Pharma gets sued all the time but that doesn't stop the introduction of new medications.

Childhood vaccines don't cause autism and very few children die or injured by them, so why does this one product warrent this special treatment?

Because Congress hasn't legislated so. The legal industry is contributes more in campaign funding than any other industry, $50 million in 2010, the next closest industry was $30 million. 85% of that money goes to Democrats so trial lawyers basically own Democrats. So there wont be any tort reform related to anything as long as Democrats have enough to filibuster in the Senate.
 
Last edited:
Because ideally 100% of the population should be vaccinated, especially for childhood diseases, as opposed to less than 1% which typically use other drugs. And if Joe Blow decides he doesn't want to take his heart medication it doesn't affect anyone else, not so if half the population decides they don't want to get vaccinated.

But if Joe Blow takes his heart medication and it kills him, he can sue the manufacturer. And if that manufacturer is say Merck (which makes both heart medication and the MMR vaccine) a big civil award could cripple Merck anyway.

Some vaccines are now made only by a single company, the others don't want to assume the risk of lawsuits. Perhaps this ruling will encourage others to manufacture vaccines.

What corporation wants to assume the risk of lawsuits? In addition, what's the motivation of making better vaccines when you know you won't be punished if you mess up?

There is no such thing as a perfect drug, name a vaccine and someone will have a bad reaction to it. People die from reactions to common foods and insect bites, nothing can ever be 100% safe and not all reactions are foreseeable.

Right, and the vaccine court violates a person's right to due process if they are harmed by a vaccine.
 
Because vaccines alone have such massive external benefits to society as a whole due to herd immunity effects.

But since they are safe, why the special courts? It can't be because big pharma is afraid of lawsuits, if so they wouldn't produce anything but cotton balls.
 
Because Congress hasn't legislated so. The legal industry is contributes more in campaign funding than any other industry, $50 million in 2010, the next closest industry was $30 million. 85% of that money goes to Democrats so trial lawyers basically own Democrats. So there wont be any tort reform related to anything as long as Democrats have enough to filibuster in the Senate.

I would think the legal industry would want to see the end of the vaccine court so they could take big pharma to court over the very small amount of people who are injured by vaccines.
 
But if Joe Blow takes his heart medication and it kills him, he can sue the manufacturer. And if that manufacturer is say Merck (which makes both heart medication and the MMR vaccine) a big civil award could cripple Merck anyway.
It's exposure. There is much more risk if 300,000,000 people are using your product than if 30,000 are using your product.

What corporation wants to assume the risk of lawsuits? In addition, what's the motivation of making better vaccines when you know you won't be punished if you mess up?
So you define anything less than 100% perfection as "messing up"? If you wait for the perfect vaccine you will never haver any vaccines at all, and you will get far more deaths.

Right, and the vaccine court violates a person's right to due process if they are harmed by a vaccine.
How so? They have lawful recourses, but getting eleventy billion dollars in the lawsuit lottery isn't one of them.
 
I would think the legal industry would want to see the end of the vaccine court so they could take big pharma to court over the very small amount of people who are injured by vaccines.
And what's the benefit to society if this happens? Fewer, more expensive vaccines and death from easily preventable childhood diseases?
 
But since they are safe

How do you know they're safe? It's only after they've been in use for extended periods that this can be determined with any certainty. And it's still only true assuming that no manufacturing defect introduces any new hazards, which is always a potential risk.
 
And it's still only true assuming that no manufacturing defect introduces any new hazards, which is always a potential risk.
The law doesn't shield vaccine makers from manufacturing defects, for example impurities introduced in the manufacturing process.
 
Yes, there is a special vaccine court. If your dishwasher is defective and injures you, you can sue. If a vaccine makes you sick, you can't. Vaccines are the only product given this protection.

Are you certain vaccines are the *only* product with this sort of protection?

IIRC, there are laws that strictly limit what lawsuits you can bring against gun manufacturers. I also just read about a law on the books that prohibits lawsuits against fast food places for causing obesity.

Seriously, this isn't the only product the courts have said you can't sue for a specific type of damage over.

I think it's safe to assume that if there was a lot of vaccine tainted with e coli or something and it made many people sick, their suits would be allowed (and wouldn't be settled under the existing structure established for those who get the very rare side effects from good vaccine).
 
I would think the legal industry would want to see the end of the vaccine court so they could take big pharma to court over the very small amount of people who are injured by vaccines.

I doubt it. Informed consent covers those rare but serious side effects, same as with any medical treatment.
 

Back
Top Bottom