Supreme Court rules vaccine makers protected from lawsuits

[steve2470]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206008.html

Federal law protects pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by parents who claim that vaccines harmed their children, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court ruled 6 to 2 that a special tribunal set up by Congress is the only way parents can be compensated for the negative side effects that in rare instances accompany vaccinations.

The majority said that Congress found such a system necessary to ensure that vaccines remain readily available, and that federal regulators are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 "reflects a sensible choice to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, referring to the Food and Drug Administration.

[fittosurvive]

1. This is a good thing when you consider that slick and charismatic attorneys are one

of the reasons health care costs are out of control.

[fascisthunter]

3. BULLSHIT!

They are doing what they have been seated to do... work and represent big money interests like the fascist fruit loops they are. Talk about elitism... right there in your face!

[fittosurvive]

4. If you oppose medical progress, don't take the medicine.

But don't make it more difficult and expensive for the rest of us.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fittosurvive]

7. There will always be a minuscule % of people who have bad reactions to vaccinations.

Slick attorneys should not be allowed to turn these unintentional misfortunes in to jackpots for themselves.

[fascisthunter]

9. sorry.... too much corporate power

I don't follow the money is more important than human suffering garbage. I'm sure there are assholes out there, but it doesn't make sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. This isn't about lawsuits, it's about power NO corporation deserves.

[fittosurvive]

10. When it comes to health care, it is the attorneys who have too much power.

They contribute nothing of value and instead siphon off vital resources that would otherwise be utilized to save peoples lives.

[stillwaiting]

11. I think you're talking about health insurance companies.

They siphon off much, MUCH more than lawyers do.

If lawyers are not allowed to combat gross negligence, I shudder to think of the outcome to our nation.

Big corporations will not give a rat's ass about much of anything if there's not a financial impact (or potential financial impact).

[fittosurvive]

30. This decision was not about gross negligence. It was about how to deal

with the fact that a tiny fraction human beings will have an adverse reaction to a particular vaccination.

[cleanhippie]

26. Not in THIS case. The SCIENCE agrees.

[spanone]

6. that is not factual....learn the facts then try again.

[fittosurvive]

8. It is factual--unscrupulous attorneys are a major factor with respect to the cost of health care.

[WinkyDink]

19. Uh, your say-so does not comprise "fact."

Nor does Beck's.

[closeupready]

28. It's a highly unfactual fact.

:crazy:

[TBF]

14. Enjoy your stay. nt

[JoePhilly]

15. The free market will decide, right?

Standard freeper logic.

If a vaccine kills enough kids, the company that makes it will go out of business.

As for those dead kids, screw them, and their stupid families!!!

:crazy:

[WinkyDink]

18. Are you out of your mind? (And afraid to write "John Edwards"?)

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. So is the harm that the medical community is doing to individuals.

And most of it, because they know they can get away with it. We don't have to wait for the day that our government begins to use us as guinea pigs. That day came a long time ago.

[truebrit71]

29. You know that is directly out of the 'right-wing bullshit tort-reform talking points' playbook...

..right? It's also total horseshit.

[RC]

2. This is not a good thing. Just more protection for the criminals.

[Littlecat]

12. Not that I think vaccines are a bad thing

but what is the motivation for the drug companies to assure the quality and safety of their product if there is no punishment for poor production. It's not like the "free market" will weed out the bad manufacturers, most doctors offer no choice in brand. What's to stop them from using the cheapest(and dirtiest) factories that they can find?

[bluethruandthru]

17. Great point! n/t

[xchrom]

22. i'm very much pro-vaccine and feel much the same as you do about this. nt

[jeff47]

23. There is punishment

It's from regulators, who theoretically operate before someone is injured. Instead of courts which can only operate after someone is injured.

[surrealAmerican]

25. That's not exactly the problem that the court ...

... is addressing with this decision.

Even vaccines that are manufactured to the highest standards, in clean, well regulated facilities, will cause adverse reactions in a small percentage of patients. It's a devastating tragedy for any family, but it's a devastating tragedy to have children suffer or die from the diseases that they may get if not vaccinated.

[SidDithers]

13. Good..nt

Sid

[closeupready]

16. Providing people like Jenny McCarthy with more fuel.

nt

[WinkyDink]

20. Yep, because there's never been thalidomide, or Red Dye #2, or........

[closeupready]

27. That's my point.

nt

[lostnfound]

21. It's well known that the founding fathers believed in trial by appointed tribunal

and this Supreme Court has once again proven that they always look to the constitution for guidance.