• 16
  • October
    2010

The controversy over potentially dangerous vaccines is a fairly new issue. For the past few years, debate has been intense regarding issues such as the effect of the MMR (Mumps, Measles and Rubella) vaccine on the development of autism. Other vaccines have been linked to severe reactions in both adults and infants.

However, vaccine proponents have been loath to seriously question the safety of vaccines. For one, it seems obvious that the vaccines in question have a positive effect insofar as they protect most newborns from developing life-threatening conditions. Still, there are those outlying cases and, around these tragic instances, the question of liability arises.

The United States Supreme Court is currently taking a hard look at a 1986 law which allowed vaccine makers to be held liable for issues arising from product defects and manufacturing errors, but granted them immunity in a number of other areas. The case before them is that of a young woman who developed severe physical disorders after being given the D.T.P. vaccine as an infant in 1992.

So far, the court system has ruled against the family. Still, regardless of what side the Supreme Court falls on, this seems to be a landmark case in the area of vaccine law.

The main question, regarding the 1986 law, revolves around the idea that negative side effects arising from vaccines which were otherwise perfectly prepared and administered are unavoidable and therefore cannot be used to file suit.

According to The New York Times, the case's outcome may hinge on the determined meaning of the very word "unavoidable."

Source Article