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

I'd say suing is bad anyway, because it just shows how greedy people are. However, I think it's wrong you don't have a right for some kind of law-based action if your kid DIES from a vaccination.

Vaccines seem to make people stupid, I bet all of you guys regularly get your shots.

My younger brother had the MMR vacinations when he was 1, around a week later he got rushed to hospital and got diagnosed with transverse myelitis, now he can't walk.

only vaccines i've had were the usual ones when you are very young actually i don't know if i have

[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] If you weren't so new I'd buy you a title that says "walking bag of polio"

I think this is mostly good, if a company has put a medicine through rigorous testing and it's administered by a medical professional with all the relevant training, it's not their fault if you have a reaction to it, it's either very bad luck or you've failed to tell them about whatever conditions you have. Obviously when it happens to a small child it's going to be the first of the two.

Sounds like some back pocket money for the judges. A lot of American vaccines can go untested, same with pills.

[QUOTE=Vasili;28231852]Sounds like some back pocket money for the judges. A lot of American vaccines can go untested, same with pills.[/QUOTE] Except this doesn't waive them of liability from the FDA, it doesn't absolve them of having to run clinical trials, it just gives them limited liability on individual patient cases. This is a good thing, because the drug companies have little incentive to develop new vaccines, as they have a mediocre profit margin and people love to sue over them. Granting them a more limited liability state allows them to maintain a presence in an essential market without as much resistance from their stockholders, and allows them to feel more secure in developing new vaccines.

[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] Say you're allergic to eggs, like I am. And say that the vaccine uses an egg culture, like many do. And say you inject egg culture into someone who has an egg allergy... What -THE FUCK- do you think is going to happen?

[QUOTE=TH89;28226798]That's not much comfort when your kid is dead because the pharmaceutical company didn't feel like producing a safe vaccine.[/QUOTE] If the design is defective, then you can indeed sue. You can also sue if it was improperly prepared. Otherwise you can petition for compensation from a fund that averages 750k payouts for victims. The system is not only working, but working unusually well. [editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;28235249]Say you're allergic to eggs, like I am. And say that the vaccine uses an egg culture, like many do. And say you inject egg culture into someone who has an egg allergy... What -THE FUCK- do you think is going to happen?[/QUOTE] That would be doctor error, not an error in the production of the vaccine. [editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] [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] You are extremely dangerous. Vaccines aren't 100% effective. So when even a small portion of your population are unvaccinated, it can allow a rather substantial outbreak to occur and claims a large number of lives before it is quelled

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;28226843]it's actually documented that children have died from vaccine reactions, and didn't just get a cold, mister asshole.[/QUOTE] Way to see the point; that's why I said "you can't guaranty safety for everyone", face it, if we were going to develop completely fail-proof vaccines, we'd all die waiting for them. This ruling just prevents frivolous lawsuits that clog up the judicial system.

[QUOTE=HandyAmMi;28228168]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.[/QUOTE] Contrary to popular belief, those releases don't actually protect the company in cases of severe negligence and similar stuff. They're also not binding if there's no reasonable expectation that the person who signs it is going to read it, like the 50-page iTunes Store agreement that you're supposed to re-agree to every time they change something every few weeks.

[QUOTE=TH89;28239330]Contrary to popular belief, those releases don't actually protect the company in cases of severe negligence and similar stuff. They're also not binding if there's no reasonable expectation that the person who signs it is going to read it, like the 50-page iTunes Store agreement that you're supposed to re-agree to every time they change something every few weeks.[/QUOTE] I guess I'm the only one who actually reads the agreements....and doesn't understand a single fucking word.