Why can't vaccine companies be sued?

Where can i find more info on this?

4 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The NVICA, a "no-fault" compensation system, was passed in 1986 to shield the pharmaceutical industry from civil litigation due to problems associated with vaccines. Under the law, families of vaccine-injured persons are required to file a petition which may be heard by a Special Master in the vaccine court. Successful claims are paid from a Trust Fund that is managed by the Department of Health and Human Services, with Justice Department attorneys acting as the legal representatives of the Fund. Sadly, it is estimated that less than 25% of those who qualify for a hearing actually receive compensation.

    Processing a claim through the vaccine court can take up to 10 years. In the end, no blame or culpability is assigned and most families are denied of much needed financial relief. In the mean time, medical bills pile up, the daily potential for more children to be harmed goes on and the heartbreak continues, all due to government legislated protection of products that are believed by many to be the "sterling backbones" of our country's public health policy.

    Who can parents and vaccine-injured adults hold accountable for injuries caused by vaccines? The system is designed so that no one-neither a person nor an entity-can be tagged with accountability: Not the vaccine manufacturer; not the doctor who recommended the vaccines nor the person who administered them; not the members of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (ACIP) who added the vaccine to the pediatric schedule; not the IOM members (Institute of Medicine) who perpetuate the mantra "vaccines are safe and effective" and stonewall opportunities for change and improvement. No one is to blame, that is, except the "defective child" who could not tolerate the immunological onslaught caused by the vaccines. "The secretary made the changes in response to an Institute of Medicine report. [FN49] But the Secretary did not follow the recommendation that the onset of chronic arthritis occur within six months of vaccination, but rather limited the onset to 42 days, simply for the stated purpose of limiting the number of claims that would qualify for the table, under the theory that to accept the recommendation would be too costly to the program. She acted for this reason even though the program has a $1.2 billion dollar surplus which is rapidly rising since only about half of the excise tax is currently being awarded................Although she is the adverse party to the claimant, a Federal Court of Appeals has found she is free to do unconditionally as she pleases in changing the vaccine table, thereby making her case against the claimant much easier in many cases. ......although the plaintiff had three experts opining that her fibromyalgia (FMS) was caused by an MMR vaccine, it was deemed by the Special Master that a causal connection between the rubella vaccine and chronic arthropathy is tenuous and has not been medically established.......this author personally knows as he sits here typing this paper that, with absolute certainty, the MMR vaccine does cause FMS."----Stan Lippmann 1998. "Assume the following scenario: A child was given the oral polio vaccine; the father (wage earner), changes the child’s diaper and he becomes paralyzed from the neck down because the vaccine administered causes contact polio, a fact known both to the regulator, the vaccine manufacturer and physicians since the early 1960s.

    The parent remains completely paralyzed with his motor functions completely destroyed, while his sensory functions are not affected one iota. Basically, he can only move his eyes. The medical expenses for the first 18 months are nearly $1 million, but he has no insurance. During the 18 months he is aware of everything, but he cannot move any of his limbs or any part of his body, other than his eyes. Eventually, the polio causes respiratory failure and he dies.

    It is now time to bury this innocent victim. His widow has no money, since no income was coming in for the last 18 months. The government/respondent not only will not pay for the funeral, it won’t even pay for the burial plot. The government/respondent’s position is very simple — if you die the only thing the estate is entitled to is $250,000; the $1 million in medical expenses are the obligation of the widow. The costs of the burial and the burial plot are the obligation of the widow.

    The fact that during those 18 months the widow, the children and the husband suffered unbelievably, and the widow and the children will continue to suffer for all the years to come, is unimportant. It is not compensable. A victim who dies as a result of the vaccine receives no money for the pain and suffering no matter how long they lived or how severe the suffering was for that victim. This is not a hypothetical case, but rather a recent decision handed down in the case of Clifford v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, July 30, 2002, No. 01-424V. " "Once a vaccine is mandated for children, the manufacturer and the physician administering the vaccine are substantially relieved of liability for adverse effects.........Should a physician advise against a mandated vaccine, he faces increased legal liability should the patient acquire the disease. Moreover, he may risk his very livelihood if he is dependent upon income from "health plans" that use vaccine compliance as a measure of "quality." "If a pediatrician fails to administer an officially recommended vaccine, and the child gets a preventable disease, the pediatrician could be sued for malpractice. If the child is injured as a side effect from such a vaccine, no pediatrician will be sued. HMOs cannot be sued. " "Vaccine manufacturers and others are sheltered from product liability lawsuits by a special 1986 act of Congress. (See the US Code 42 USC 300aa for details.) This act set up a fund to compensate those who can prove serious injury from vaccines."


    Source(s): DA
  • 1 decade ago

    The reason "why" is public policy. If they could be sued for the small number of bad reactions by each individual, they couldn't make money making the vaccine, and they would stop making them. Because it is in the "public good" not to have epidemics of disease, they are offered some limited personal liability. They would probably win the suits anyway, but the legal costs would be prohibitive.

    They can still be sued, if they are negligent. They cannot be sued if a person has a bad reaction from no fault of the company.

  • MadMan
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    They can be sued if they act negligently - i.e. manufacture a batch of vaccine with a contaminant that they were or should have been aware of.

    They cannot, in general, be sued for an allergic reaction because all drugs have the potential for such an outcome.

  • fdm215
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Sued for what? If they produce a faulty product, if they falsify research, overstate effectiveness, or anything similar...they can be held liable for damages people may suffer.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.