Worldwide Vaccine Injury Schemes
We identified 19 countries with current vaccine compensation schemes (Fig. 1). In 1953, the German Supreme Court ruled that people who were injured by compulsory vaccination (in this case smallpox) were entitled to compensation. Germany enacted a compensation programme in 1961.5 France implemented a similar scheme in the 1960s.6 Concern over injuries caused by medicines and the inadequacies of traditional litigation processes increased after the thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s. In the 1970s, concerns over adverse events related to diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccination led to programmes being established in Austria,7 Denmark,8 Japan,9 New Zealand,10 Sweden11 Switzerland12 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).13 In the 1980s, Taiwan (China),14 Finland,15 the United States of America (USA)16 and Quebec (Canada)17 implemented programmes. Italy,18 Norway19 and the Republic of Korea20 followed in the 1990s. The most recently implemented programmes are those in Hungary,21 Iceland22 and Slovenia.23
READ MORE: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/10-081901/en/index.html
Australian Vaccine Injury
Here in Australia, there is currently no compensation scheme available for victims of vaccine injury. There are new calls for this to be implemented, and 19 other countries already have a No Fault Vaccine Injury Scheme - to compensate victims of vaccine injury for unintended side effects.
"The chief executive of the Public Health Association of Australia, Michael Moore, backed the call for a scheme and said it should be introduced by the federal government in its next national immunisation strategy. Professor Kelly said research showed no-fault compensation schemes overseas had increased public confidence in vaccination programs.
A spokesman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon said although the federal government was developing a national immunisation strategy this year, it would not set up a compensation scheme. He would not explain the reasons why the government rejected the idea."
READ MORE: http://m.theage.com.au/national/call-for-vaccination-injury-compensation-scheme-20110107-19iwv.html
I personally find it quite deplorable of our Government to not compensate a victim of Vaccine Injury. In the past I would have assumed that there was no valid reason for a scheme, due to the widely held opinion of today's society that tells us that injuries are extremely rare, the Vaccine is above and beyond safe. However you only have to take a look around and find the increasing number of Parents and individuals conveying their concerns over an injury their child, or themselves, now have due to a Vaccination gone wrong. The simple truth of the matter is, there are many factors which contribute to vaccine injury. Not all people are going to get away with vaccinating, some people will suffer detrimental health effects which are long lasting, and these individuals deserve to be compensated. It is unconscionable, in my opinion, to simply ignore the needs of these individuals and to ignore their long term suffering. It is said to actually improve confidence in the Vaccine Programs of other countries where they have a no fault vaccine injury program - so what is happening here in Australia? We are about 60 years behind Germany.
"The chief executive of the Public Health Association of Australia, Michael Moore, backed the call for a scheme and said it should be introduced by the federal government in its next national immunisation strategy. Professor Kelly said research showed no-fault compensation schemes overseas had increased public confidence in vaccination programs.
A spokesman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon said although the federal government was developing a national immunisation strategy this year, it would not set up a compensation scheme. He would not explain the reasons why the government rejected the idea."
READ MORE: http://m.theage.com.au/national/call-for-vaccination-injury-compensation-scheme-20110107-19iwv.html
I personally find it quite deplorable of our Government to not compensate a victim of Vaccine Injury. In the past I would have assumed that there was no valid reason for a scheme, due to the widely held opinion of today's society that tells us that injuries are extremely rare, the Vaccine is above and beyond safe. However you only have to take a look around and find the increasing number of Parents and individuals conveying their concerns over an injury their child, or themselves, now have due to a Vaccination gone wrong. The simple truth of the matter is, there are many factors which contribute to vaccine injury. Not all people are going to get away with vaccinating, some people will suffer detrimental health effects which are long lasting, and these individuals deserve to be compensated. It is unconscionable, in my opinion, to simply ignore the needs of these individuals and to ignore their long term suffering. It is said to actually improve confidence in the Vaccine Programs of other countries where they have a no fault vaccine injury program - so what is happening here in Australia? We are about 60 years behind Germany.
Australian Articles relating to a Vaccine Injury Scheme:-
Call for vaccination injury compensation scheme
Julia Medew January 08, 2011
"CHILDREN who suffer serious injuries associated with routine immunisations should receive compensation through a no-fault scheme, doctors and health experts say.
Associate Professor Heath Kelly of Melbourne University's School of Population Health said although it was rare for children to be seriously harmed by vaccines, it was unfair not to compensate the few affected when there were known risks. "There is no doubt that the benefits of immunisation far outweigh the risks. However, on the very rare occasions that there is a serious complication, despite proper manufacture and administration of a vaccine, it is only fair that the community should provide for the individual suffering … as there is a community benefit from as many people as possible being vaccinated," he said.
Professor Kelly, who is also head of the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, said 19 countries had set up no-fault compensation schemes for children who suffer serious vaccine-related problems. In many cases the schemes are funded by a levy on manufacturers when the vaccines are sold.
''Germany was the first country to establish such a scheme in 1961 and Hungary most recently implemented its scheme in 2005. It is well past time for Australia to do the same,'' he said.
Acute allergic reactions to vaccines are estimated to occur at a rate of about one in 1 million.
Professor David Isaacs, an infectious disease specialist at the Children's Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, said any caring society should compensate families who suffered serious adverse reactions to vaccines because it was often difficult to sue for damages.
READ MORE : http://m.theage.com.au/national/call-for-vaccination-injury-compensation-scheme-20110107-19iwv.html
Payouts Sought for Jab Injuries
By Julie Robotham, Medical Editor
May 27, 2004 (Note that still in 2013 no ground has been gained with this issue here in Australia)
"Children injured permanently by routine immunisations should receive automatic compensation from the Federal Government instead of having to sue, leading doctors and medical groups say.
David Isaacs, a specialist in immunology and infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, called on the Government to initiate a fund which could be used for no-fault payments to the one or two children annually whose injuries were probably or definitely caused by vaccines.
He said Australia lagged behind other countries, including Britain, the US and New Zealand, which all had such schemes in place.
Seizures leading to brain damage can in rare circumstances result from immunisation.
Litigation was not appropriate for vaccine-damaged babies, Professor Isaacs said, because injury occurred unpredictably, meaning it was hard to show negligence.
"Society expects children and adults to be immunised . . . it is only fair and just that society, in the form of national government, should compensate families or individuals when vaccine injury occurs through nobody's fault," Professor Isaacs wrote in this month's issue of the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Such a scheme, which might also cover adults receiving recommended shots, could help defuse a "culture of blame", he said, as well as increasing the public's and doctors' confidence in the universal immunisation program.
Money could come from central funds or a levy on vaccine manufacturers, wrote Professor Isaacs, who also reviews all possible cases of vaccine injury for the federal Health Department.
An alternative was to follow New Zealand's approach of including vaccine injuries in its no-fault compensation scheme for work-related and vehicle accidents - funded by levies from employers, employees and vehicle registration fees.
Jill Sewell, a Melbourne pediatrician and president of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said: "It is a reasonable and very fair proposition."
Although immunisation was technically not compulsory, there was pressure on parents to immunise their children, including a requirement in some states to register a conscientious objection before enrolling an unimmunised child at school."
READ MORE: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/26/1085461836098.html
May 27, 2004 (Note that still in 2013 no ground has been gained with this issue here in Australia)
"Children injured permanently by routine immunisations should receive automatic compensation from the Federal Government instead of having to sue, leading doctors and medical groups say.
David Isaacs, a specialist in immunology and infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, called on the Government to initiate a fund which could be used for no-fault payments to the one or two children annually whose injuries were probably or definitely caused by vaccines.
He said Australia lagged behind other countries, including Britain, the US and New Zealand, which all had such schemes in place.
Seizures leading to brain damage can in rare circumstances result from immunisation.
Litigation was not appropriate for vaccine-damaged babies, Professor Isaacs said, because injury occurred unpredictably, meaning it was hard to show negligence.
"Society expects children and adults to be immunised . . . it is only fair and just that society, in the form of national government, should compensate families or individuals when vaccine injury occurs through nobody's fault," Professor Isaacs wrote in this month's issue of the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Such a scheme, which might also cover adults receiving recommended shots, could help defuse a "culture of blame", he said, as well as increasing the public's and doctors' confidence in the universal immunisation program.
Money could come from central funds or a levy on vaccine manufacturers, wrote Professor Isaacs, who also reviews all possible cases of vaccine injury for the federal Health Department.
An alternative was to follow New Zealand's approach of including vaccine injuries in its no-fault compensation scheme for work-related and vehicle accidents - funded by levies from employers, employees and vehicle registration fees.
Jill Sewell, a Melbourne pediatrician and president of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said: "It is a reasonable and very fair proposition."
Although immunisation was technically not compulsory, there was pressure on parents to immunise their children, including a requirement in some states to register a conscientious objection before enrolling an unimmunised child at school."
READ MORE: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/26/1085461836098.html
The U.S Vaccine Court
Here is an interesting excerpt from the Wiki entry on the Vaccine Injury Court :
"Currently, nearly 5,000 families are attempting to demonstrate that vaccines can cause autism, despite the medical and scientific consensus that there is no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines or any preservative or additive ever used in vaccines.[2][19]"
I say that it is an interesting excerpt because of the ludicrously biased way that the line is written. And it's flagrant disregard for the reality of all of the previous Court Rulings and Financial Payouts to victims and their parents in which an actual causal relationship exists.
"Currently, nearly 5,000 families are attempting to demonstrate that vaccines can cause autism, despite the medical and scientific consensus that there is no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines or any preservative or additive ever used in vaccines.[2][19]"
I say that it is an interesting excerpt because of the ludicrously biased way that the line is written. And it's flagrant disregard for the reality of all of the previous Court Rulings and Financial Payouts to victims and their parents in which an actual causal relationship exists.
Further Reading
Vaccine Court - United States
Cases before the Vaccine Court are heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Vaccine court is the popular term which refers to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers a no-fault systemfor litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the Court of Claims, sitting without a jury. The program was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.[1]
Vaccine court is the popular term which refers to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers a no-fault systemfor litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the Court of Claims, sitting without a jury. The program was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.[1]
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) in 1988 to compensate individuals and families of individuals injured by covered childhood vaccines.[3] The VICP was adopted in response to a scare over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine.[1] These claims were later generally discredited, but some U.S. lawsuits against vaccine makers won substantial awards; most makers ceased production, and the last remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.[1] The VICP uses a no-fault system for resolving vaccine injury claims.[1] Compensation covers medical and legal expenses, loss of future earning capacity, and up to $250,000 for pain and suffering; a death benefit of up to $250,000 is also available. If certain minimal requirements are met, legal expenses are compensated even for unsuccessful claims.[4] Since 1988, the program has been funded by an excise tax of 75 cents on every purchased dose of covered vaccine. To win an award, a claimant must show a causal connection; if medical records show a child has one of several listed adverse effects soon after vaccination, the assumption is that it was caused by the vaccine. The burden of proof is the civil-law preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, in other words a showing that causation was more likely than not. Denied claims can be pursued in civil courts, though this is rare.[1]
The VICP covers all vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table maintained by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; in 2007 the list included vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus,pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), polio, hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), Haemophilus influenzae type b, rotavirus, and pneumonia.[5] From 1988 until 2008-01-08, 5,263 claims relating to autism, and 2,865 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 925 of these claims, one autism-related (see Previous Rulings), were compensated, with 1,158 non-autism and 350 autism claims dismissed; awards (including attorney's fees) totaled $847 million.[6] The VICP also applies to claims for injuries suffered before 1988; there were 4,264 of these claims of which 1,189 were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.[6]
Filing a claim with the Court of Federal Claims requires a $250 filing fee, which can be waived for those unable to pay. Medical records such as prenatal, birth, pre-vaccination, vaccination, and post-vaccination records are strongly suggested, as medical review and claim processing may be delayed without them. Because this is a legal process most people use a lawyer, though this is not required.[4] By 1999 the average claim took two years to resolve, and 42% of resolved claims were awarded compensation, as compared with 23% for medical malpractice claims through thetort system.[7] There are legal time limits for filing claims.[citation needed] As with any benefit program, eligibility requirements seem unfair to some applicants.[7]
Several claimants have attempted to bypass the VICP process, with some successes so far. They have demanded medical monitoring for vaccinated children who do not show signs of autism, and have filed class-action suits on behalf of parents.[1] In March 2006, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiffs suing three manufacturers of thiomersal could bypass the vaccine court and litigate in either state or federal court utilizing the ordinary channels for recovery in tort (Holder v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., 444 F.3d 383). This is the first instance where a federal appeals court has held that a suit of this nature may bypass the vaccine court. The argument was that thiomersal is a preservative, not a vaccine, so it does not fall under the provisions of the vaccine act.[8]
Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
The VICP covers all vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table maintained by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; in 2007 the list included vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus,pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), polio, hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), Haemophilus influenzae type b, rotavirus, and pneumonia.[5] From 1988 until 2008-01-08, 5,263 claims relating to autism, and 2,865 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 925 of these claims, one autism-related (see Previous Rulings), were compensated, with 1,158 non-autism and 350 autism claims dismissed; awards (including attorney's fees) totaled $847 million.[6] The VICP also applies to claims for injuries suffered before 1988; there were 4,264 of these claims of which 1,189 were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.[6]
Filing a claim with the Court of Federal Claims requires a $250 filing fee, which can be waived for those unable to pay. Medical records such as prenatal, birth, pre-vaccination, vaccination, and post-vaccination records are strongly suggested, as medical review and claim processing may be delayed without them. Because this is a legal process most people use a lawyer, though this is not required.[4] By 1999 the average claim took two years to resolve, and 42% of resolved claims were awarded compensation, as compared with 23% for medical malpractice claims through thetort system.[7] There are legal time limits for filing claims.[citation needed] As with any benefit program, eligibility requirements seem unfair to some applicants.[7]
Several claimants have attempted to bypass the VICP process, with some successes so far. They have demanded medical monitoring for vaccinated children who do not show signs of autism, and have filed class-action suits on behalf of parents.[1] In March 2006, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiffs suing three manufacturers of thiomersal could bypass the vaccine court and litigate in either state or federal court utilizing the ordinary channels for recovery in tort (Holder v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., 444 F.3d 383). This is the first instance where a federal appeals court has held that a suit of this nature may bypass the vaccine court. The argument was that thiomersal is a preservative, not a vaccine, so it does not fall under the provisions of the vaccine act.[8]
Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court