SCOTUS, NCVIA & Other Interesting Acronyms

A controversial (and by extension interesting) case is currently being heard by the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS).  This case (click here) is questioning the protections afforded vaccine manufacturers by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA).

For those unfamiliar, the NCVIA was enacted to offer some significant liability protection to vaccine manufacturers. The fear then (and now) was that our "litigation-happy" culture (no offense to my brother, or any other members of the nobel profession of arguers) would offer too much risk for manufacturers to continue to stay in the vaccine marketplace.  In the interest of public health, which would, it was/is argued, be harmed by unavailability of vaccines, the act established a compensation program for injuries from some specific vaccines, and in conjunction limited the liability of manufacturers to be sued for those injuries.

The case in question involves a family that claimed injury of their daughter following administration of a diptheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine manufactured by Wyeth.  The parents files for compensation under the federal injury program, but were turned down.  They have attempted to bring a lawsuit against Wyeth.

In my opinion, vaccinations are one of the true success stories of modern medicine.  When was the last time you heard of a local neighborhood child contracting polio or smallpox?  The long-lasting negative impacts of the diseases to the general population are incredibly larger than the negative impacts supposedly connected with current vaccines.  Adverse events do occur from vaccine administration but on an incredibly infrequent basis.  When they do occur, the national compensation program is available.  I'm in support of the law preventing lawsuits related to vaccine injury - if anything, in this particular case (and I have not researched it fully) there should be an assurance that appropriate grievance and appeals have been considered by the panel responsible for compensation awards.

The other side of the argument says that by preventing lawsuits being brought against vaccine manufacturers, we remove an incentive to develop new, safer vaccines.  Unfortunately, no company will be interested in developing, testing or manufacturing newer (supposedly safer) vaccines if the liability exposure is so great.  For those who DO stay in the manufacturing space for vaccines, the prices charged will be much greater than they are today - market forces there - supply and demand - and so the pricing of vaccines will also rise.

I will disclose that my opinion on this topic is in line with the current administration's.  This admittedly forced me to consider if I could be wrong - but have come to the conclusion that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.  Oh, and I'm not blind, nor a rodent...