Abstract
WASHINGTON, D.C. 10/12/10—In 1986, a no-fault system was established to compensate children injured by vaccines. That was supposed to end litigation against manufacturers. Clearly, it has not.
The US Supreme Court is considering whether parents can sue Wyeth, now a unit of Pfizer, for allegedly causing their daughter to develop a seizure disorder in response to a vaccine. They maintain Wyeth could have made a safer product.
The special court that handles vaccine claims rejected the suit, which alleges the child developed the problem after receiving the third dose of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. The court was not persuaded that the vaccine was at fault.
Before the Supreme Court, Justice
“What's the motivation for manufacturers to voluntarily remove a drug that is causing harm to the public before the FDA acts?” she wondered.
If the Supreme Court indeed rules in favor of the parents, it could open the door for a flood of lawsuits alleging that vaccines caused childhood autism, although the available evidence says they do not. There is concern that as a result, more companies would withdraw from making vaccines—exacerbating the shortage that led to the creation of the federal program in the first place.
The three other remaining US vaccine manufacturers and the Administration filed briefs supporting Wyeth.
Early indications are that the Supreme Court will be evenly split on the issue; the newest Justice, Elena Kagan, is not participating in the decision. That outcome would leave intact the decision barring the family from suing.