Parents can't sue drug firms when vaccines cause harm,

[MonstHer]

This article scares me... What do you think about this?

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0222/Parents-can-t-sue-drug-firms-when-vaccines-cause-harm-Supreme-Court-says

Parents can't sue drug firms when vaccines cause harm, Supreme Court says

In a 6-to-2 decision, the high court said Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz’s lawsuit was preempted under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law grants drug companies immunity from certain lawsuits from injuries or deaths tied to vaccinations.

“We hold that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs who seek compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority decision.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

Ok, I read the whole article and I can see why they voted this way.

The Supreme Court looks at all the evidence presented. They cannot hear new testimony. Based on the evidence they have, they make their decision.

I think that it is up to doctors and parents to understand the risks when it comes to vaccination. I think in this "sue-happy" culture, anyone whose child had the smallest reaction to a vaccine would go off and start suing the company that produced the vaccine. I think the decision was right. Who knows? In the future, they might overturn their decision when there is more evidence.

 

[feeble]

I think its disgusting, a child is a HUMAN not an experiment, if parents are co-erced (as they are) into having vaccination then some liability must be in place otherwise what reason would they have for making safe, well tested vaccines?

 

[Ozzieshunni]

feeble, are you on some sort of rampage? Everything I've read from you today has been soooooo negative.

Not all parents are coerced into vaccinating their children Not vaccinating is irresponsible.

 

[feeble]

Bit harsh there!

What have I ever done to you??

Today I have had a look at the news and debate section and given my point of view as well as done some gender guesses, chatted with some mates, helped someone (I hope) who has just lost their baby and given some advice around breastfeeding.

Sorry you don't like my views but please, don't cast some awful judgment on me... What a horrid, horrid thing to say

 

[smokey]

I think the courts decision is right.
As parents its our responsability to do our own research and use our own thoughts to decide what we want for our children.
to vaccinate or not vaccinate is a personal choice that shouldnt be taken lightly but we should take responsability for our choices, by choosing to go either way you are then taking ALL outcomes as part and parcle of your actions

If you have gone into either choice of to vaccinate or not vaccinate without doing your research and making a well informed decision then that is part of the parents responsability.

Obviously im taking about the assumption that the vaccinations where done correctly and not involving any medical negligence ie like when I took LO to get his done the stupid nurse nearly gave him the wrong one and it was only because I had researched what he should be having that I noticed beforhand that the batch name wasnt right.
Thats a differant case all together

 

[JASMAK]

Parents need to do their own research - which I believe most do anyways.

 

[feeble]

A lot of vaccinations in the uk are administered incorrectly, the label and guidelines have clear rules that suggest they should not be given when a child has had an adverse reaction like a rash or a temperature and we give them any.

Regardless however, of research or no, if a company is not liable for the drugs they produce, what is put in place to ensure they are making safe, well tested drugs?

So many of you appear to have pulled up my views on the matter (which is, and always will be that mothers in the uk are co-erced into having vaccinations without need for proper research) but none of you have been able to answer that simple observation.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I have never been coerced into vaccinating Alex. That's a very broad statement! I've done my research and we are delaying the MMR to 15 months. I've reviewed this with my doctor and HV and they are FULLY supportive! I've brought up every reaction Alex has had and they are always willing to listen to us. Where are you getting your information? It's very one sided.

 

[feeble]

Yes, i am sure most people with the intent and the mindset to come on a baby board and ask questions about their baby are in fact of the mindset to research vaccines. That however, does not make us the rule.

I know people who research sleeping arrangements, food, weaning, breastfeeding etc but they just believe vaccination is the 'done thing' and don't even bother finding out about it.

I know people (many actually) whose children have had adverse reactions to vaccinations, like extreme high temperatures, rashes etc and yet they still continue with a strict monthly vaccination program despite the actual manufacturers recommending that this is not done... So how have they done their research and come to that conclusion?

Anyway, this thread is about liability, not my personal views on research and vaccination (which will not change) so can we get back on topic please?

P.s ozziehunni I would really appreciate some acknowledgement and perhaps an apology over how rude and unnecessary you were to me yesterday, it was absolutely out of order and ignoring it will not change that.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I won't apologize for my opinion.

 

[feeble]

I respect your opinion but not your attack on my character.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

If you have an issue with me, ignore me. No skin off my back. It's a public forum. I think your opinions are negative and you make blanket statements. That's all. Any more issues, you can take it to PM

 

[smokey]

Yes, i am sure most people with the intent and the mindset to come on a baby board and ask questions about their baby are in fact of the mindset to research vaccines. That however, does not make us the rule.

I know people who research sleeping arrangements, food, weaning, breastfeeding etc but they just believe vaccination is the 'done thing' and don't even bother finding out about it.

I know people (many actually) whose children have had adverse reactions to vaccinations, like extreme high temperatures, rashes etc and yet they still continue with a strict monthly vaccination program despite the actual manufacturers recommending that this is not done... So how have they done their research and come to that conclusion? Anyway, this thread is about liability, not my personal views on research and vaccination (which will not change) so can we get back on topic please?

P.s ozziehunni I would really appreciate some acknowledgement and perhaps an apology over how rude and unnecessary you were to me yesterday, it was absolutely out of order and ignoring it will not change that.

This pretty much answers why the vaccine company shouldnt be sued, the manufactuers have advised against it yet the parents and nurses still go ahead with it so why should the company get sued when they said not to?
If anything its the medical nurse that should be held accountable for continuing with the injection knowing there had been a reaction and knowing she would make the situation worse.
Also the parents should use some common sense as well rather then "oh this jab made my child ill so I know ill give them some more"

Everyone reacts differantly to things, you can not possibly predict every possible outcome or reaction.
Penacillin has saved the lives of millions of people but should my husband sue because he had a bad reaction to it and had a fit? no

 

[feeble]

If you have an issue with me, ignore me. No skin off my back. It's a public forum. I think your opinions are negative and you make blanket statements. That's all. Any more issues, you can take it to PM

I would ask you that you do the same... Rather than ignoring the forum rules and personally attacking me perhaps? I have brought this matter up with a moderator, hopefully they will be along soon to clarify.

 

[feeble]

Yes, i am sure most people with the intent and the mindset to come on a baby board and ask questions about their baby are in fact of the mindset to research vaccines. That however, does not make us the rule.

I know people who research sleeping arrangements, food, weaning, breastfeeding etc but they just believe vaccination is the 'done thing' and don't even bother finding out about it.

I know people (many actually) whose children have had adverse reactions to vaccinations, like extreme high temperatures, rashes etc and yet they still continue with a strict monthly vaccination program despite the actual manufacturers recommending that this is not done... So how have they done their research and come to that conclusion? Anyway, this thread is about liability, not my personal views on research and vaccination (which will not change) so can we get back on topic please?

P.s ozziehunni I would really appreciate some acknowledgement and perhaps an apology over how rude and unnecessary you were to me yesterday, it was absolutely out of order and ignoring it will not change that.

This pretty much answers why the vaccine company shouldnt be sued, the manufactuers have advised against it yet the parents and nurses still go ahead with it so why should the company get sued when they said not to?
If anything its the medical nurse that should be held accountable for continuing with the injection knowing there had been a reaction and knowing she would make the situation worse.
Also the parents should use some common sense as well rather then "oh this jab made my child ill so I know ill give them some more"

Everyone reacts differantly to things, you can not possibly predict every possible outcome or reaction.
Penacillin has saved the lives of millions of people but should my husband sue because he had a bad reaction to it and had a fit? no

The NHs specifically says that adverse reactions to vaccines such as high temperatures and rashes are not a reason not to continue the programme, and the manufacturers advice is not freely given by the nurses administering the vaccine, so without REALLY looking, that information is not available.

I agree that in the case of a nurse or doctor, working under company guidelines, administer a vaccination against the advice of the manufacturer, that the company should be liable.

But the point is that someone should be liable.

I think there are two separate issues here, the issue of giving a vaccination against a guideline and also the issue of vaccination manufacturers being blameless in what issues those vaccines might cause in the first instance. If there is no liability, what is in place to make sure those vaccinations are well tested and safe. I would say allowing no liability opens the flood gates to misuse, rushing through safety and testing in new vaccinations (something we have already seen with the HPV vaccination) etc.

 

[smokey]

But the companies wont be held ultimatly blaimless, the artical states that they are not to be held accountable for unavoidable side effects, those that will effect one in a million.

The law says in part that no vaccine manufacturer shall be held liable for a vaccine-related injury or death “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

No matter what safety procedures go into making a vaccine there will always be at least one child that has a bad reaction because their body rejected it, you can not possibly safeguard against every reaction especialy when millions are given with no ill effect and possibly save millions of lives.
I by no means want to belittle the effect on that poor one child in a million especialy the heartache on the family if it results in a death but its not like we are talking every other child here, if that was the case then there wouldnt be a vaccine to begine with if it where to make loads of children ill or die.

If loads of incidents start cropping up of sever side effects resulting from lack of safety control then of course the courts will look into it.

The article even states that

Products liability law establishes three grounds for potential liability – if there is a defect in the manufacture, if there were inadequate warnings, or if there is a defective design.

vaccinemakers would continue to face the prospect of design-defect lawsuits filed by victims.

So if there are cases of missuse, negligence, unsafe product then there will still be lawsuits so they are still accountable to keep safe testing going

 

[feeble]

I think it depends on the severity and type of reaction, surely if a company is selling millions of products, at profit, then part of that should include liability if the product 'goes wrong' as is the same with most products.

It's a bit like saying that car manufacturers should not be liable if one in a million cars 'goes wrong' and kills someone, because most of the time it goes right.

That is consumer law, so why different for vaccinations?

If vaccination causes a reaction that negatively impacts on a child's life for the rest of their life, of course they should be able to seek compensation for that, as anyone would with any
Product that did the same.

 

[smokey]

But I dont see how you can sue for an individual fluke reaction, by that means everyone who has ever had an illergic reaction to something should sue.
Do I sue Unigate for having a lactose reaction or go straight for the cow?

Also the families of children with reactions are not being completly ignored there is still the fund for compensation.

Congress sought to strike a balance that would protect vaccine manufacturers from open-ended liability from private lawsuits while also creating a special fund to compensate those who suffer side effects from vaccines.

Roughly 100 to 200 claims for compensation are submitted each year to a special vaccine court. To date, the compensation fund has paid out $1.8 billion to 2,500 petitioners. The average award is about $750,000.

So all the law is trying to do is prevent open ended lawsuits not actualy shut down any form of compensation, again its one of those news articles that is trying to blow it out of control

 

[summer rain]

A lot of vaccinations in the uk are administered incorrectly, the label and guidelines have clear rules that suggest they should not be given when a child has had an adverse reaction like a rash or a temperature and we give them anyway.

Regardless however, of research or no, if a company is not liable for the drugs they produce, what is put in place to ensure they are making safe, well tested drugs?

So many of you appear to have pulled up my views on the matter (which is, and always will be that mothers in the uk are co-erced into having vaccinations without need for proper research) but none of you have been able to answer that simple observation.

This is correct in my experience and that of others I know, and there is clearly contradictory safety info in the NHS booklet on vaccinations and the leaflets/box inserts of the manufacturers themselves which are often withheld from parents. I know cases as well where the insert has been given to a parent; they have raised worries due to their child clearly meeting the criteria of those for whom the vaccine should either be administered with caution or not at all and the nurse or GP has said 'oh thats not important' or 'oh that doesn't apply'. People do trust medical professionals and they do trust NHS information booklets so I don't think a parent is liable if they are given this incorrect info by such seemingly credible sources. I am not anti-vaccination but it is irresponsible IMHO for the NHS and their staff to go against the safety advice of a manufacturer about their own product xx