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

[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0222/Parents-can-t-sue-drug-firms-when-vaccines-cause-harm-Supreme-Court-says]Christian Science Monitor[/url] [img]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0222-wires-court/9628753-1-eng-US/0222-wires-court_full_380.jpg[/img] [release]The family of an infant who allegedly suffered a severe reaction to a vaccine may not sue the drugmaker for failing to update the vaccine with a newer, safer version, the US Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. "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. In a dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that, by preempting all design defect lawsuits by vaccine victims, the high court was imposing “its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress.” The decision “leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing and distributing their products,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Millions of infant vaccines are safely administered each year throughout the United States. But government officials acknowledge that a small percentage of infants experience a severe negative reaction from a vaccine. In some cases the reaction can be fatal. Faced with open-ended damages from lawsuits filed on behalf of those who suffer severe reactions from vaccines, drug manufacturers considered avoiding the vaccine market altogether. In passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 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. But compensation is only part of the Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose. Congress also sought to preempt lawsuits seeking open-ended money damages against vaccine manufacturers. The problem with the law is that Congress did not specifically spell out which lawsuits may move forward in the courts against vaccinemakers and which must be dismissed. 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.” 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. The key issue in the case was why Congress did not mention “defective design” as preempted from potential lawsuits."[/release]

I never did understand why people would want a large amount of currency for some minor accident. I'm confused about the name of the source.

Makes, sense? After all, you can't guaranty safety for everyone, this just prevent idiot parents from suing just because their kid got a cold, or some other illness, just because they made some sort of false pseudo-link between the vaccine and their child's illness.

maybe that's because vaccines can't fucking hurt you, and if you think they can you should kill yourself

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28226084]maybe that's because vaccines can't fucking hurt you, and if you think they can you should kill yourself[/QUOTE] Any drug can hurt you genius

Vaccines cause cancer, autism and diabetes :downs:

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;28226237]Vaccines cause cancer, autism and diabetes :downs:[/QUOTE] They probably turn you gay as well

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28226084]maybe that's because vaccines can't fucking hurt you, and if you think they can you should kill yourself[/QUOTE] You didn't read the article at all did you

Makes sense, there is already a fund for people who are negatively affected by vaccinations, whatever that may be.

Sounds like a reasonable judgement. The medical field could use more legal protections like this; lower legal liability means lower premiums for medical practitioners and facilities meaning lower overall healthcare costs. Probably a more effective way of battling rising healthcare prices than simply offering to cover the bill for the disadvantaged.

I agree with this bill mostly. But for the small percentage of parents who have their children killed by a vaccine should be able to sue. Sure, if the kid gets a cold or something then it's bullshit for them to sue. But the death of a child can not go unpunished.

[QUOTE=5killer;28226723]Makes sense, there is already a fund for people who are negatively affected by vaccinations, whatever that may be.[/QUOTE] That's not much comfort when your kid is dead because the pharmaceutical company didn't feel like producing a safe vaccine.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28225817]Makes, sense? After all, you can't guaranty safety for everyone, this just prevent idiot parents from suing just because their kid got a cold, or some other illness, just because they made some sort of false pseudo-link between the vaccine and their child's illness.[/QUOTE] it's actually documented that children have died from vaccine reactions, and didn't just get a cold, mister asshole.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28226084]maybe that's because vaccines can't fucking hurt you, and if you think they can you should kill yourself[/QUOTE] You don't have any idea what a vaccine is or how it works, do you? Don't go telling people to off themselves when you have no clue what you're talking about.

[img]http://geekspodcast.com/geekpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/yo_dawg-230x300.jpg[/img] Yo dawg, I heard you like immunizations. So we immunized immunization companies from immunization lawsuits

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;28226862]You don't have any idea what a vaccine is or how it works, do you? Don't go telling people to off themselves when you have no clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Vaccines are like, deactivated parts of a disease right? Can you explain what could go wrong, I'm just wondering

[quote]A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe or its toxins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.[/quote] [editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] [quote]The problem with the law is that Congress did not specifically spell out which lawsuits may move forward in the courts against vaccinemakers and which must be dismissed.[/quote] Fuck's sake, why does lawmaking have to be so dependent on semantics

[QUOTE=Hesychasmos;28226914][editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] Fuck's sake, why does lawmaking have to be so dependent on semantics[/QUOTE] Because if they make it too explicit, then there are ways around it. If they make it too broad, there are ways through it.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;28226905]Vaccines are like, deactivated parts of a disease right? Can you explain what could go wrong, I'm just wondering[/QUOTE] In a nutshell, yeah. If the person getting the vaccine happens to be allergic to a protein that's in the vaccine, there's a possibility they'll go into anaphylactic shock.

[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;28226758]I agree with this bill mostly. But for the small percentage of parents who have their children killed by a vaccine should be able to sue. Sure, if the kid gets a cold or something then it's bullshit for them to sue. But the death of a child can not go unpunished.[/QUOTE] I think you need to read the article again; Only a very small number of kids that are vaccinated are killed by it but the costs involved with settling such happenings is incredibly high. The whole point of the bill is to shield the companies from those extreme cases because without those legal protections the companies would most likely not bother investing R&D and selling "risky" vaccines. Millions of lives are saved by those drugs and it makes little sense to put those lives at risk out of fear of legal consequences. I don't really see how a child's life is "worth" some value of money that a family could sue for. Punishing the companies isn't going to change the realities of how drugs in general work. Just like with food allergens, what can be safe for 99% of the population may still harm that 1% regardless of the time, money, and effort expended on preventing that.

I'm divided on this. Surely there are cases where serious harm was done and those incidents need to be rectified. But i'm sure there's some that lie and bullshit it all to get money. But stopping the companies from being liable? COME THE FUCK ON.

Yeah, I'm really split on this one. It seems that people shouldn't be able to sue over freak incidences of the vaccine not working - but at the same time, to rule out any form of liability allows vaccine producers to skip on testing, knowing that if something goes wrong, they won't suffer for it. Maybe a solution is to pass the bill, but re-examine the standards of testing and trials before a vaccine is publicly released?

I'm going to sue the federal government because I had a severe allergic reaction (read: hayfever) when I was in a national park. I can be an American litigator now?

Welp, I've never been Vaccinated nor had any shots in my life and its safe to say that I'm still alive.

The only time that I would see reasonable to sue a drug company for a flaw in their product is if they re-affirm everything works beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which never really happens(Except for the case of common household pharmaceuticals). Plus most causes for something going wrong could be dependent on the patient, such as an unkown allergy, etc.

[QUOTE=baqua;28228109]Welp, I've never been Vaccinated nor had any shots in my life and its safe to say that I'm still alive.[/QUOTE] Well, thank herd immunity.

[QUOTE=Contag;28228086]I'm going to sue the federal government because I had a severe allergic reaction (read: hayfever) when I was in a national park. I can be an American litigator now?[/QUOTE] You will make [b]BILLIONS![/b]

Before every single vaccine I've had in the past few years, I had to sign a release that stated that I understood that there could be a reaction. Wouldn't the parents have to sign something similar for their kids? I'd think that if they signed something like that and then the kid had a reaction, they'd really have no place to sue anyway. Signing those papers implies that you know the risks beforehand.

Just another case of Big Business trying to make you sick so you have to buy their shit. Fuck America To Hell.

[QUOTE=baqua;28228109]Welp, I've never been Vaccinated nor had any shots in my life and its safe to say that I'm still alive.[/QUOTE] god job you're probably a carrier for TB and polio, I'm suing you [b]FOR TRILLIONS[/b]