babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Supreme Court Rules to Protect Vaccine Makers: Boosting Public Health?
Vaccine makers protected, kids safer?
Today the Supreme Court ruled to protect drug manufacturers from lawsuits over vaccines. Justices voted 6-2 to shield Pfizer’s Wyeth unit from the claim of two parents, Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, that a vaccine caused their daughter Hannah Bruesewitz’s seizure disorder.
The court started to hear arguments in October 2010 and handed down the decision today. If the lawsuit had been allowed, it might have opened the door to further suits from parents claiming that vaccines caused their child to develop autism.
But the Supreme Court said the family could not sue the drug maker, and here’s why:
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, drug manufacturers are protected from lawsuits over “unavoidable” side effects of vaccines (since, as with every drug, there are risks involved for a small percentage of children). In return, the manufacturers pay into a fund that will compensate families who suffer negative consequences from vaccines through a more informal “vaccine court.”
Many agree with the court’s upholding of this arrangement, since opening up vaccine manufacturers to lawsuits would drive many out of the vaccine-making business. And vaccines are a vital part of public health. As the Wall Street Journal reports:
“The major threat to the integrity of the no-fault system is gone,” said Stephan Lawton, who authored an amicus brief from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 21 other physician and public-health groups, on a conference call with reporters. The decision “preserves the concept that it should be experts under a no-fault system who make these determinations,” he said.
Do you think the court made the right decision to protect Wyeth from a lawsuit?
Image: flickr
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
Joseph Finn commented on Feb 22 11 at 10:39 pmHow about there’s never been any link reputably shown between vaccines and autism, so the lawsuit was without any merit to begin with and never should have gotten past a local trial?
Birgit Calhoun commented on Feb 22 11 at 11:32 pmI am afraid that this Supreme Court decision is going to cause a greater number of parents to shy away from not only vaccines but also pediatricians. Pediatricians are likely to insist on vaccination. So if the parents do not want their children to be vaccinated, the pediatrician then will refuse to treat their children. Lately it has become a practice among pediatricians to refuse treatment for all kinds of reasons–Hyppocratic oath or not. (I have experienced this simply because the doctor preferred not to treat a mentally handicapped person.) Not to vaccinate seems to have become a crime in many people’s minds (Law and Order has an episode in which a mother is accused of murder for having allowed her non-vaccinated child to expose another non-vaccinated child). Parents who have experienced a child’s deterioration after vaccination will be less likely to see a doctor and the child will be deprived of that care.
goddess commented on Feb 23 11 at 8:34 amYo Joe~ this case was NOT about autism. It was about neurological damage suffered after the DTaP vaccine. Have you READ the package insert? It DOES cause brain damage. The earlier version of the whole cell left our son wit severe brain damage that ultimately led to his death. encephalitic reactions are a rare, but known and documented reaction to this vaccine.
Get your facts straight before you make erroneous accusations and statements about these issues please.
JenB commented on Feb 23 11 at 12:22 pmIf the DTaP vaccine was caused this child’s seizure disorder, then they should have been compensated through the vaccine court. Vaccines are not without risk, and that is what the vaccine court and compensation fund are there for. It seems the break down was there instead of with Wyeth. The Department of Health and Human Services removed seizures from the known list of DTaP reactions and routinely keeps families waiting for years on rulings in stead of ruling in the “timely and generous” manner it is supposed to. If we are going to ask families to vaccinate in the name of public health, the vaccine compensation fund system needs to step up to help the small percentage of children who will have bad outcomes. I think vaccine makers should be protected. The parents were failed by the system and are trying to get acknowledgment and help for their daughter after they ran out of options. Who can blame them?
Kikiriki commented on Feb 23 11 at 1:12 pmJenB, you’re absolutely right. Vaccine makers should be protected from lawsuits, because otherwise we might be in danger of not having access to vaccines. But the vaccine compensation fund needs to be overhauled so it can actually do what it was designed to do, and compensate families who need it.
ChiLaura commented on Feb 23 11 at 4:37 pmAgree with JenB.
Kdub commented on Feb 24 11 at 11:56 amI don’t think the court made a right decision. Vaccine companies should be held liable then maybe they would change the contents within the vaccine to be less harmful. I have never agreed with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. I’m sure parents would rather see justice happen with these vaccine companies and not just receive money. This “one size fits all” attitude needs to change. It’s out dated because the evidence is clear. For those who feel a small amount of children who suffer adverse reactions should be over looked for the greater good, well just remember it could happen to your kid. I’m sure you would do everything within your power to prevent it from happening to your child. Also remember this is America and lobbying is a huge part of our government. Companies with the most money get what ever they want even if it’s harmful to the people.
heatherturgeon commented on Feb 24 11 at 3:17 pm@Jenb: really helpful perspective, thank you for that
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Lori Garcia 
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0