Supreme Court weighs whether parents can sue vaccine makers

[bemildred]

The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday to decide whether Congress left parents the option to sue a drug maker for selling a vaccine with potentially dangerous side effects.

Vaccines can protect millions of children from deadly diseases and serious illness, but they can cause injury or illness to a small fraction of those who are inoculated.

Congress set up a fund in 1986 to compensate parents of children who were injured by a vaccine. But many parents have been dissatisfied with the fund.

The justices are considering the case of a Pittsburgh woman who suffered seizures as a baby shortly after she was given a third dose of a vaccine for diptheria, tetanus and pertussis. Hannah Bruesewitz, now 19, suffered development disabilities, and her parents sought compensation in 1995.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-vaccine-20101013,0,1224364.story

[pnwmom]

1. That's outrageous that she wasn't awarded compensation for her injury.

The vaccine law was meant to help cases exactly like hers. It originated because of problems with the old DPT vaccine, which was known for causing seizures and encephalitis. Now they're using the fact that the seizures she developed immediately after the vaccine never went away as an excuse not to compensate her. This is reprehensible.

If we're going to expect everyone to get vaccinated for the good of the community, then there should be compensation when a child has a severe and permanent reaction to the vaccine.

[Tumbulu]

2. well stated - I agree (nt)