A question for the forum lawyers

[BigStewMan]

Another is product defect.

and if one person has a reaction to the vaccine and 5000 don’t (made up numbers), it would be hard to justify that the product was defective and would probably be easier to make a claim that the recipient was the one defective. 

I got bit by a brown recluse. Doctor gave me a shot of an antibiotic. I immediately broke out into a rash. Neither of us had any idea I was allergic to that drug. I find no fault in either of us.

I wonder how many parents would be wanting to sue Uncle Sam if their child contracted one of these diseases and the government had a vaccine; but, chose not to make it available. 

Edited June 26, 2015 by BigStewMan

[tube fanatic]

 

Another is product defect.

 

I got bit by a brown recluse. Doctor gave me a shot of an antibiotic. I immediately broke out into a rash. Neither of us had any idea I was allergic to that drug. I find no fault in either of us.

 

 

Out of curiosity, did the doctor tell you which antibiotic you reacted to, advise you to not use it again unless under extremely controlled conditions, and wear a medical alert bracelet in case you are ever in a situation which prevents you from talking?  If he/she didn't, and you were given this antibiotic and died from it (a possibility), would your family shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" and not want to go after the original doctor?

 

Maynard 

[JJkizak]

 

Another is product defect.

and if one person has a reaction to the vaccine and 5000 don’t (made up numbers), it would be hard to justify that the product was defective and would probably be easier to make a claim that the recipient was the one defective. 

I got bit by a brown recluse. Doctor gave me a shot of an antibiotic. I immediately broke out into a rash. Neither of us had any idea I was allergic to that drug. I find no fault in either of us.

I wonder how many parents would be wanting to sue Uncle Sam if their child contracted one of these diseases and the government had a vaccine; but, chose not to make it available. 

 

 

You got bit by a brown recluse and your still alive?

JJK

[Jeff Matthews]

I wonder how many parents would be wanting to sue Uncle Sam if their child contracted one of these diseases and the government had a vaccine; but, chose not to make it available. 

 

Even if they wanted to, they couldn't.  Sovereign immunity. 

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

Another is product defect.

 

I got bit by a brown recluse. Doctor gave me a shot of an antibiotic. I immediately broke out into a rash. Neither of us had any idea I was allergic to that drug. I find no fault in either of us.

 

 

Out of curiosity, did the doctor tell you which antibiotic you reacted to, advise you to not use it again unless under extremely controlled conditions, and wear a medical alert bracelet in case you are ever in a situation which prevents you from talking?  If he/she didn't, and you were given this antibiotic and died from it (a possibility), would your family shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" and not want to go after the original doctor?

 

Maynard 

 

 

That's the thing, right there!  Is this considered "administration" of the vaccine?  Or is this separate advice, which ordinary principles of negligence require doctors to give according to the ordinary standard of care within the profession?  If it is the latter, there would be no shield from liability.  You'd still have to prove causation, though.  The defense might likely claim there was proportionate responsibility (comparative negligence) on the part of the patient. After all, if you reacted like that to the shot, wouldn't you ask questions, find out what happened, remember it, note it, get a wrist-band, etc.?  It can be argued that the average person would.  In states like Texas, if the plaintiff is more than 50% negligent, he cannot recover.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Travis In Austin]

The docs I know do not even discuss possible adverse reactions with parents prior to administering a vaccine.  Everyone involved with vaccines is totally shielded.  And I want to know why!   

Maynard

 

 

The NCVIA requires that parents be given an information sheet that explains the risks and benefits prior to each and every dose.  EVERY medical practitioner I know involved in family practice or pediatrics gives the required information, gets the parent to sign a receipt for the information, and  the parent also acknowledges that their questions have been answered.  You should report all of those doctors you know who are not providing this information to the appropriate State Board of Medical Examiners.  Now if it is a question of what you believe should be explained, and what the law requires to be explained, then the doctor's are in compliance and you are out of luck.  

 

They are not totally shielded.  If a petitioner prevails on their claim and is paid from the Trust Fund established by the Act, the Fund is subrogated to the petitioners claims and can go after anyone involved in either the manufacturer or administration of that vaccine for the recovery of the amount that the Fund paid.  The Act does not provide immunity from civil liability as you suggest, it converted from a tort based compensation system to a "no-fault" based system.  There is a big difference in being immune from liability and a no-fault system.  There are pros and cons with a no-fault system.  There are other areas of tort law that have gone to a no-fault system.  Some states have "no-fault" for automobile accidents, workers' compensation is no-fault, etc.

 

Why did it happen?  In the 1980s there were numerous law suits being filed over claims related to child vaccines.  Some manufacturers found it too costly and were starting to pull out of that market and there was the beginnings of a shortage of vaccine.

 

Congress became involved and they ended up with NCVIA.  Aside from the creation of the no-fault system, there were many, many other benefits that came out of that act to insure the safety of vaccines.

 

Travis 

 

 

 

The industry in question here is Pharm, and the specific sub-catagory of that industry is the manufacturers of child vaccines.  

[oscarsear]

Every MD's office requires that a patient complete a medical history that includes any understanding about reactions to any medications of any sort.  Still, 1st time allergic reactions occur but usually they are not life threatening.  It is later administration of the drugs that can have lethal adverse reactions.  

 

There are people with allergies to many things, natural and manmade.  A bee sting will take a life.  People become allergic to themselves, their immune systems start to assault their own organ systems.  Certainly transplant recipients usually reject the the new organ as a foreign body and they must undergo a lifetime of medications to control that rejection.  So, yeah, like any allergy a person may have it is up to them to know them and manage their lives accordingly, and this includes allergies to medications.  Get the bracelets not only for allergic reactions but also for disease states which can alter mental states, like diabetes.  Know if you take blood thinners.  Being responsible for your own medical data base is a wise idea.

 

If you expect perfection from medicine you are expecting too much.  There are way too many variables.  It is not engineering.  You can get better or worse care based upon level of knowledge and skills and support systems.  

[BigStewMan]

 

 

Another is product defect.

 

I got bit by a brown recluse. Doctor gave me a shot of an antibiotic. I immediately broke out into a rash. Neither of us had any idea I was allergic to that drug. I find no fault in either of us.

 

 

Out of curiosity, did the doctor tell you which antibiotic you reacted to, advise you to not use it again unless under extremely controlled conditions, and wear a medical alert bracelet in case you are ever in a situation which prevents you from talking?  If he/she didn't, and you were given this antibiotic and died from it (a possibility), would your family shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" and not want to go after the original doctor?

 

Maynard 

 

yes told me what i was allergic to; put it in my medical record…don’t recall being told to wear a bracelet.

[BigStewMan]

You got bit by a brown recluse and your still alive?

Yes. Also got hit by a truck while walking across the street; been in a very serious car accident that left me with survivor’s guilt, in a jet that made an emergency landing, got off a plane at my stop and the plane continued on--and there was an attempted hijacking on that leg of the flight.

I’ve only had three colds in 15 years; but, i’m a REAL BABY when i get one. 

[Sancho Panza]

I'd rather be sick in bed, than have a cold.

[Travis In Austin]

Well the anti-vaccine group has lost their biggest medical proponent. I wonder what quack will step up now to fleece gullible parents out of their money?

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/06/anti-vax-doctor-dead-of-apparent-suicide-conspiracists-fired-up/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/03/25/the-vaccine-war-what-you-should-know-after-you-watch-pbs-frontlines-special/

[Sancho Panza]

Sad that someone would do that for money.

[Coytee]

 

 

Another is product defect.

and if one person has a reaction to the vaccine and 5000 don’t (made up numbers), it would be hard to justify that the product was defective and would probably be easier to make a claim that the recipient was the one defective. 

I got bit by a brown recluse. Doctor gave me a shot of an antibiotic. I immediately broke out into a rash. Neither of us had any idea I was allergic to that drug. I find no fault in either of us.

I wonder how many parents would be wanting to sue Uncle Sam if their child contracted one of these diseases and the government had a vaccine; but, chose not to make it available. 

 

 

You got bit by a brown recluse and your still alive?

JJK

 

 

 

I thought a recluse bite "just" made your skin rot off and it wasn't lethal?

 

Here's something I once read about how to treat them.  Thought it was interesting.

Brown Recluse.doc

[tube fanatic]

I have nothing further to add regarding the vaccine controversy, so I'd like to take a different track with a corollary discussion, and get the input of Travis, Jeff, and everyone else:  why should the medical status of kids with active HIV infections be kept totally shielded from everyone including their teachers?  Vaccines are pushed under the cloak of protecting the health of the whole population while HIV, which is obviously contagious in a number of ways, is swept under the rug.  Here in NJ, kids with active HIV are allowed to participate in sports where blood to blood contact is a possibility.  Pre-school kids and kids in daycare sometimes bite others.  They sometimes get nosebleeds while sitting on the laps of their teachers and assistants, and it isn't always possible for the latter to put the kid down and find a pair of gloves to put on before helping.  Kids who wear diapers sometimes leak stool (particularly if they have a virus with diarrhea) which other kids can come into contact with.  And I could keep going.  So, here we are on the one hand having this huge outcry about forcing vaccines for anything and everything, but when it comes to HIV it's a non-issue.  Why?

 

Maynard

[oscarsear]

I have nothing further to add regarding the vaccine controversy, so I'd like to take a different track with a corollary discussion, and get the input of Travis, Jeff, and everyone else:  why should the medical status of kids with active HIV infections be kept totally shielded from everyone including their teachers?  Vaccines are pushed under the cloak of protecting the health of the whole population while HIV, which is obviously contagious in a number of ways, is swept under the rug.  Here in NJ, kids with active HIV are allowed to participate in sports where blood to blood contact is a possibility.  Pre-school kids and kids in daycare sometimes bite others.  They sometimes get nosebleeds while sitting on the laps of their teachers and assistants, and it isn't always possible for the latter to put the kid down and find a pair of gloves to put on before helping.  Kids who wear diapers sometimes leak stool (particularly if they have a virus with diarrhea) which other kids can come into contact with.  And I could keep going.  So, here we are on the one hand having this huge outcry about forcing vaccines for anything and everything, but when it comes to HIV it's a non-issue.  Why?

 

Maynard

The status of HIV infected kids is protected by anti discrimination laws.  They are allowed access to public education.  The healthcare community indicates that unless there are open wounds or intentional risky behavior (biting, for example)............ that these kids pose little risk of transmitting the disease.  More importantly are the numbers of HIV positive kids in todays schools.   The transmission of HIV from mother to child (the typical infectious vector) has been effectively managed and there are very few children with HIV in the elementary systems.  New diagnoses of HIV in this age group is under 10 cases per year for the entire country.  

 

If there is any 'child' group at risk it is among adolescents experimenting with sex.  Statistically one group stands out for new HIV infections and I'd share it here - but the thread would be closed down by the PC admin.  Suffice it to say that HIV remains mostly an STD passed among the male populations who just yesterday got the okey dokey to get married.  Wherever enclaves of these populations exist they seem to target young males some that still attend public high schools and certainly Jr colleges.  But by that age I'd hope that these kids are smart enough to avoid exposure and the other downsides which can accompany sexual activity.

[Travis In Austin]

I have nothing further to add regarding the vaccine controversy, so I'd like to take a different track with a corollary discussion, and get the input of Travis, Jeff, and everyone else: why should the medical status of kids with active HIV infections be kept totally shielded from everyone including their teachers? Vaccines are pushed under the cloak of protecting the health of the whole population while HIV, which is obviously contagious in a number of ways, is swept under the rug. Here in NJ, kids with active HIV are allowed to participate in sports where blood to blood contact is a possibility. Pre-school kids and kids in daycare sometimes bite others. They sometimes get nosebleeds while sitting on the laps of their teachers and assistants, and it isn't always possible for the latter to put the kid down and find a pair of gloves to put on before helping. Kids who wear diapers sometimes leak stool (particularly if they have a virus with diarrhea) which other kids can come into contact with. And I could keep going. So, here we are on the one hand having this huge outcry about forcing vaccines for anything and everything, but when it comes to HIV it's a non-issue. Why?

Maynard

The status of HIV infected kids is protected by anti discrimination laws. They are allowed access to public education. The healthcare community indicates that unless there are open wounds or intentional risky behavior (biting, for example)............ that these kids pose little risk of transmitting the disease. More importantly are the numbers of HIV positive kids in todays schools. The transmission of HIV from mother to child (the typical infectious vector) has been effectively managed and there are very few children with HIV in the elementary systems. New diagnoses of HIV in this age group is under 10 cases per year for the entire country.

If there is any 'child' group at risk it is among adolescents experimenting with sex. Statistically one group stands out for new HIV infections and I'd share it here - but the thread would be closed down by the PC admin. Suffice it to say that HIV remains mostly an STD passed among the male populations who just yesterday got the okey dokey to get married. Wherever enclaves of these populations exist they seem to target young males some that still attend public high schools and certainly Jr colleges. But by that age I'd hope that these kids are smart enough to avoid exposure and the other downsides which can accompany sexual activity.

I agree that is the reason and the law on HIV disclosure on children with HIV.

Travis