Drug companies, Vaccines and lawsuits.

[Epidemic]

Should a drug company be held liable for vaccines approved by the US government for 1 in a million type deadly reactions? Allergies and unusual conditions can cause a reaction to any drug, should a pharmaceutical company be held liable for punitive damages in such cases?

I am not sure how to vote on this one but I do know that there are scenarios in which any drug will cause death when combined in the right body and conditions.

I lean towards the liability being limited in mandatory vaccination programs to the federal government as they sponsored the vaccine and the widespread use of it. With the obvious exception, that if there is a cover up of known side effects.

If the drug met and surpassed all guidelines governing their creation and distribution, should any liability be given to the manufacturer?

If a drug will cause deaths in 1 in a million vaccinated that should be documented. Should anyone pay for such a death, if so who and what should the payment cover?

[Theophylact]

I remember all too well the Cutter polio vaccine case in the fifties: because of a defective batch of Salk vaccine, a number of children got polio from supposedly killed virus.

A lawsuit eventually awarded the victims what seems like a laughably small sum nowadays -- about $700,000. There seems little doubt that the company had inadequate quality control, but it doesn't seem to have had guilty knowledge of the defects.

Shouldn't they have paid? They actually caused a polio epidemic among children who otherwise would have been perfectly healthy. Seems to me that you need some kind of a stick, and that simply immunizing vaccine companies against lawsuits is a perverse incentive.

[J-Excel]

Drug companies should be liable for defective product, not defective patients. In the Cutter case there was a defective product. If someone that is allergic to penicillin dies from a penicillin shot the company that made the product shouldn't be liable.

This may have been included in the Homeland Security act because of a possible upcoming smallpox vaccine. A nationwide smallpox vaccine is expected to cause 100,000 deaths.

Also, an anthrax vaccine has been implicated in Gulf War Syndrome.

There is a huge difference between a known adverse effect of a vaccine, and what happened with that batch of Salk vaccine, IMO.

Like ANY drug, there are potential risks. The prescriber of the drug needs to check patient risk factors prior to administering the drug in order to inform of the potential risks.

If drug companies could be held liable for adverse effects, we would have no drug companies. Adverse effects are a reality, and unavoidable. Sad for an affected individual, but a drug company cannot be held financially accountable for what is a known, reported effect.

If a prescriber did not take adequate steps to inform a patient /. parent of risk, then they MAY be liable, depending on what is considered common knowledge.

The government should not be held liable, as what they are recommending is in the best interests of public health, even though there may be risks to individuals. Making governments liable will endanger the whole population but forcing governments to not make recommendations for mass vaccination.

I think it boils down to the difference between a fault or mistake, and a known, calculated risk. Life is not risk free. Ever.

IMO

Cheers
Mick

[Epidemic]

If the drug met and surpassed all guidelines governing their creation and distribution, should any liability be given to the manufacturer?

Theophylact,

That would fall outside the guidelines I specified. The polio scenario was a mistake not a calculated risk.

The main point of the HLSA restricting liability is so that the trial lawyers do not bankrupt the pharmaceutical for participating in risky vaccines like small pox. Do you believe that they should be held liable for calculated risks made by the government?

I am not speaking of mistakes and negligence, I feel they would still be liable for negligence. Trial lawyers would take the fact that something has a known risk and put a nasssty evil big business spin on it.

[J-Excel]

Originally posted by J-Excel
A nationwide smallpox vaccine is expected to cause 100,000 deaths.

I exaggerated a little...

For each million people vaccinated with the smallpox vaccine, as many as 250 could die, according to the American Medical Association. Multiply 250 times 285 (millions of Americans) and the possible deaths from universal smallpox vaccination could equal 71,250. ~ Journal of the American Medical Association, June 9, 1999

Note the date. Everything I've seen written post 9/11 has the death rate much lower, under 1,000.

The present case being debated in Senate will benefit just one Company-- Eli Lily. Guess how much they contributed to GBW and the GOP?

All companies must be held accountable for the products they produce. No ifs and buts. If the mercury in Eli Lily vaccines causes autism in kids then they must face the lawsuits, not lobby the GOP for exemptions.

We all know that the present Government is pro-big business (oil/defence) no matter what the cost to the ordinary citizen.

But this smacks of corruption in high places.

Any comments? Anyone?

[Theophylact]

Here's one:

[Epidemic]

Theo, I have not read up on this, do you know what the freedom from liability is.

Is it complete or just freedom from government ordered vaccines?

Or is it freedom from lawsuits on noted risk factors not negligence?

I do not believe they should be obsolved from things like the polio mistake. But they should definitely be free from lawsuits pertaining to known risk factors. And deaths caused by untested scenarios aka the 1 in a million alergic reaction.