A Critical Overview of Vaccine Side Effects

Vaccinations have become a new hot issue across the nation as parents and physicians alike debate the useful nature of vaccines and our increased reliance on vaccines.  Further than this reliance and the results that can stem from that are the side effects which many vaccines cause, which still are not entirely understood by scientists.  These factors have melded together in recent personal injury lawsuits against drug manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies whose products have injured those they were intended to help.

History of Vaccines

While most people assume vaccinations are a modern, 20^th century invention, evidence exists that the Chinese population used a smallpox inoculation to ward off the virus as early as 1,000 C.E.  As globalization and trade occurred with the West, this early form of vaccine spread even to the Americas.  However, Edward Jenner created the first widespread vaccine to smallpox in 1796 which eventually eradicated smallpox around the world.

The next major vaccine to make worldwide waves was Louis Pasteur’s 1885 rabies vaccine.  After this point in history, other vaccines were developed to protect against diphtheria, tetanus, anthrax, cholera, plague, typhoid fever, and tuberculosis, which thereby paved the way to the modern world.  More vaccines were developed during the 20^th century which targeted childhood illnesses such as measles, mumps, rubella, and polio.

Vaccines have now expanded to focus on non-infectious conditions such as allergies and addictions.  Along with the creation of vaccines came the establishment of vaccine mandates which we have followed for nearly one hundred years, although side-effects to these vaccines have begun to feature prominently in the ongoing discussion of vaccines and the requirements.

Legal Steps in Vaccine Side Effects

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that people injured from improperly designed vaccines may not sue vaccine manufactures but instead must rely on a compensation system created by a 1986 law.  Congress created the 1986 law as a “societal bargain” through which vaccine manufacturers fund an efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoidance of costly tort litigation.  This case specifically focused on vaccine injuries to children and whether these children had the ability to bring ordinary injury suits under state law.  The specific personal injury case the Supreme Court heard was Brusewitz v. Wyeth, which was brought by the parents of a child who received a vaccine known as D.T.P. in 1992 as an infant.  The vaccine was designed to offer protection against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough), but resulted in severe side effects to the child including seizure disorders and developmental problems.

Congressional Intent

The parents of the child in Brusewitz filed a petition to receive compensation under the program created by Congress in 1986 but they lost because they were unable to prove that the vaccine caused their daughter’s injuries.  However, the Supreme Court focused on specific language in the 1986 bill which stated that ordinary lawsuits were barred 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.”  Essentially, Congress intended to allow recovery for those people and children who were harmed by defectively designed vaccines in creating the 1986 bill, but wanted to protect against an onslaught of potential personal injury lawsuits that could be brought against vaccine manufacturers.  Personal injury lawsuits can become quite costly when brought against drug manufacturers, and Congress believed that the amount of overall good vaccines provide to the general population overrides the bad that can occur in a percentage of cases, thereby creating the law to prevent personal injury lawsuits.

 

About the Author:

Andrew Mounier is a passionate member of the End Ecocide movement, an avid legal blogger, Environmental Law Student and writer for Legalnews.tv. He has worked in marketing for over a decade and finds his passion in bringing concepts to life. As a Socialpreneur, he is an agent for positive social change through both his writing and business endeavors.