WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments later on Tuesday in a case that could shake up protections aimed at keeping vaccine makers in business.
The high court has agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case involving a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, now 18, who suffered seizures after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, one of the regular childhood vaccines.
Normally, such cases are referred to a special no-fault program that compensates people genuinely harmed by vaccines. In this case, the parents, Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer Inc (PFE.N).
They say the vaccine has an outmoded and flawed design and contained toxins that caused the seizures. They say Hannah has suffered developmental problems since then.
At issue is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Congress passed the law to prevent repeated lawsuits against vaccine makers and says no manufacturer is liable for injuries from "side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."
The question before the court is whether suits over the design of a vaccine may bypass the vaccine compensation system.
State courts have issued conflicting rulings on the question.
The Georgia Supreme Court found that federal law allows some design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers while a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled Congress expressly prohibited such lawsuits in an effort to shield manufacturers from liability.
President Barack Obama's administration agrees federal law prevents such design defect lawsuits in state courts. The Department of Justice filed a friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against the Bruesewitz family.
Public health experts argue vaccines are vital to the health of the nation as a whole and say no drug company will make them if they must fear repeated lawsuits.
"Withdrawal of a vaccine is particularly damaging because vaccines are administered not only to immunize individuals, but also 'to reduce transmission of infection and thereby to prevent disease even in non-vaccinated individuals, thus to protect communities,'" the Justice Department argues.
The vaccine injury program has a pot of money, provided by a tax on vaccines, to pay people genuinely injured by vaccines.
Pfizer has said it was "hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm" the Philadelphia appeals court ruling in Wyeth's favor.
15 comments:
In my opinion I'm sure that design defects are unavoidable because lets face you can't make everyone happy, someone somewhere will try to sue you even if you have good intentions. I mean if the vaccines are meant to help us than I suppose it does, but there's always gonna be that one person that's gonna react to the vaccine negatively. What they should have done is some kind of blood test to make sure.
Ultimately, the benefits of vaccines out weigh the consequences. Like any other medication or medical treatment out there, there are obviously risks involved. However, that does not mean that the manufacturers are free of responsibility by saying 'that's just how it is.' They should try to do everything they can to erase deadly side effects as part of their responsibility to their customers. If it appears that they are taking advantage of the legal systems and the people, it should be looked into.
The spread of non-scientifically backed horror stories of problems due to vaccines is endangering the rest of the population who responsibly try to avoid diseases of the past like diptheria, TB, and mumps. These and more had been previously been eradicated, but are on the upswing again. The no-fault compensation fund sounds like an excellent compromise between good of one and good of all, and this case should be handled through that, as so many more people will become sick and possibly die if a vaccine is pulled off the shelves due to a hasty decision by the courts.
I think that all these anti-vaccine activist type cases are incredibly dangerous and could lead to withdrawls of vaccines that could lead to sickness and loss of life. While this case is a bit more tangible than the activist cause brought up by the ex playboy bunny it could still be damaging.
I know where the parents are coming from in trying to sue the vaccine company. But in their defense they had no idea that the vaccine would affect their daughter like that. Not every person reacts the same and it is a risk when getting the vaccine and the reactions that could be encountered. The vaccine company was only trying to do their job in providing protection against major infections. Parents need to understand that. Also on the parents side seizures are a pretty big deal. This is no rash that can just be taken away or a virus that can be cured. So there should be some help or support on the parents side for thier daughter.
Alex Salazar (1st)
The industries who make the vaccines shouldnt be worried about having people sue them because like they said they will get scared that they will be sued and eventually stop making them. I dunno what the reasons were for sueing them, besides that she has had seizures because of that, but they shouldnt have sued the company it might not even b the vaccine that is doing that to her it could be something else that she is having problems with not just the vaccine.
The Bruesewitz faqmily has everyright to compensation. The company set money aside for cases liike this so the Bruesewitz's should too. I dont see how her case is any differnet. The court needs to vote in her favor.
The vaccine makers should be very careful when they make their vaccines to make sure that there are no defects in the vaccines. People can have serious problems if the vaccines are not checked and made carefully. If vaccine makers are protected by law then they should show why they deserve to be protected by making sure their vaccines are good to go and even though they can compensate people who are harmed by vaccines it still doesn't look good for them if their vaccines harm people.
Eh....well the vaccines does has warnings more than likely saying what possible things that could go wrong when you use the vaccine. It's true, if people were to sue the companies then they would probably get scared and stop producing vaccines or they would go bankrupt because people keep taking their money. You use vaccines at your own risk, if you don't like the possible side effects don't take it. Each vaccine acts differently to different people. I think that the companies should be protected.
If the caccines are gonna have side effects on children like that maybe the people giving the vacine should check before they go and give the shot. People should be able to sue the makers of the vaccine if it is not made right. just like the family did.
Vaccines*
Their are always risks that come along with any kind of medicine or vaccine. Be that as it may that a child got sick, risks were aware probably not as sever as the seizures but it was known,
I believe that the the supreme court should rule in favor of the vaccine companies because they are there to protect us and arent trying to hurt us. If there are more cases of the vaccine effecting people in negective ways then they would fix the vaccine. Since the companies are there for our benefit, I dont see why we should be getting upset with them.
I agree that the these companies should have some protection from lawsuits, because they will stop making vaccines if they're too afraid of getting sued. However if their is something wrong in the design of the vaccine something should be done and the companies and vaccines should be inspected regularly. The family should be justly compensated and the vaccine should be inspected, but the Supreme Court should not rule in favor of the family
I agree with public health experts that vaccines are important to preventing major outbreaks of diseases. As long as the vaccines have passed inspection and were made properly, people should not be allowed to sue for the side effects. Like the articles says, side effects are unavoidable and the vaccine manufacturers should not be held accountable for them. Especially not when there is a vaccine injury program that will compensate people for such effects.
Post a Comment