日韩精品久久一区二区三区_亚洲色图p_亚洲综合在线最大成人_国产中出在线观看_日韩免费_亚洲综合在线一区

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語(yǔ)Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / From the Press

COVID-19 vaccines, litigation-shield laws go hand in hand

By Richard Cullen | China Daily Asia | Updated: 2021-01-04 09:24
Share
Share - WeChat
A medical worker injects a man with a COVID-19 vaccine at a healthcare center in Beijing, Jan 2, 2021. [Photo/Xinhua]

Shakespeare's body of work is filled with remarkable characters. In Henry VI (Part 2), from 1591, Dick the Butcher says "Let's kill all the lawyers". This is regularly read as a reflection on how lawyers, over 400 years ago, were already renowned for twisting words and events to the advantage of clients and to their own advantage. Lawyers, it is worth remembering, have not historically been required, like doctors, to swear first, to do no harm upon initiation to their profession.

In 1986, the US established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) in response to a threat to vaccine supplies arising out of multiple, big-dollar lawsuits claiming damages for side effects from certain vaccines administered in the 1980s. American Public Health officials said the claimed side effects were regularly ill-founded but juries kept finding in favor of plaintiffs.

Nowhere in the developed world is civil litigation more prevalent than in the US. The legislation establishing the NVICP stopped almost all vaccine injury lawsuits, however, by effectively banning them. Instead, anyone claiming to have been harmed through vaccination had first to sue to recover from the NVICP itself by establishing an injury linkage in accord with the rules set down in that program. Time limits to sue applied and limits on awards were stipulated. Fault did not need to be shown — but a clear link between vaccine and injury had to be established. Funding was provided via a small excise tax (75 cents) on every purchased dose of a vaccine covered under the NVICP.

The NVICP tracked the introduction, in the 1960s, of German and French public compensation schemes for vaccine injuries, which also sidelined private actions.

The NVICP was a radical move for the US. But the alternative was either a drying up of vaccine supplies (and research) or a potentially huge increase in vaccine costs to cover possible legal claims. Both outcomes were seen as contrary to the broad public interest. Vaccine development and production were put back on track.

Somewhat controversial, additional protection for US vaccine makers was provided in 2005 (when Avian Flu concerns were high) with the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act.

Amongst other things, it covered new vaccine development and production — and emergency use — once a public health emergency had been declared.

This powerful litigation shield, enacted by Congress, has been a significant factor in allowing Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, to develop and deploy, with exceptional speed, two anti-COVID vaccines in the US using a new vaccine technique.

Numerous other jurisdictions have enacted similar laws to shield vaccine makers from adamant lawyering, in order to protect the public interest.

Vaccines can never be guaranteed to be absolutely free of side effects. When administered to any large population there will be a very small number who may be particularly vulnerable to side effects of varying seriousness, due to personal physiology and medical history. This risk rises with emergency vaccine usage. The compensation schemes outlined above are designed to look after such persons, while closing the door on proliferating litigation.

In addition to relying on a legislative shield, vaccine makers can also protect themselves by contract. It is not possible to do this on an individual basis with each person being immunized. But it is common — as we are seeing with COVID vaccines — for governments to be the primary purchaser of vaccine supplies and it is also unexceptional for governments to contract that they will not sue in relation to certain specified matters associated with vaccine production and supply. This helps speed delivery — and it also lowers costs.

We need to remember that vaccine creation and production is intensely complex and demanding. The reputation concerns of manufacturers provide crucial, initial protection against the risk of scientific recklessness. More importantly, vaccines are subject to exacting public verification protocols prior to being authorized for public use.

Can we be sure nothing can go wrong, especially with vaccines produced during a huge, ongoing public health emergency? No, we cannot. But if we delay continuously to try and eliminate all possible risks, will many more die and still more suffer? Yes, they will.

Bearing in mind both the need-pressures and safeguards outlined above, many jurisdictions have agreed that certain newly created, widely tested COVID vaccines should be granted emergency use status to avoid the delay involved in waiting until such vaccines becoming fully registered.

Hong Kong has sensibly taken this approach. We are fortunate, too, that the Government has now secured enough vaccine doses from three sources (Sinovac, AstraZeneca and Fosun-Pfizer-BioNTech) to inoculate the entire HKSAR population.

The COVID pandemic has disrupted life across the planet to an extraordinary degree. The consequences have been devastating at many levels and, regularly lethal. One primary positive story to emerge from this immense misfortune has been the development, at record speed, of a number of promising vaccines. These offer the clearest chance of laying foundations for a return to long-term, public health normality. Moreover, this experience signals what may be possible as further pandemics arise. There are now some inspiring, fresh pathways to follow.

We did not have to kill all the lawyers to secure this outcome — nor would we want to. Shakespeare would surely agree, however, that it is fortunate smart law-making beginning decades ago has ensured that predatory lawyering could not defer — or stop — urgently needed vaccine research aimed at controlling the worst public health crisis in over 100 years.

The author is a visiting professor at the law faculty of the University of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 欧美日韩三级在线观看 | 久久精品伊人网 | 国产精品久久久久一区二区 | 欧美日批视频 | 色黄网站在线观看 | 东京不太热在线新视频 | 精品一区二区三区网站 | 丁香花婷婷 | 国产一区二区久久久 | 久久r热这里有精品视频 | 久色乳综合思思在线视频 | 欧美视频在线一区 | 色综合久久久久综合99 | 亚洲最大成人在线 | 久久精彩 | 久久国产精品久久久久久久久久 | 国产小视频免费在线观看 | 9久久99久久久精品齐齐综合色圆 | 日日爽| 欧美亚洲另类视频 | 欧美三级免费看 | 亚洲成人观看 | 久久亚洲高清 | 四虎影视最新网站在线播放 | 国产欧美日本亚洲精品五区 | 性夜影院爽黄e爽痛轻点www | 青娱在线视频 | 特黄特色大片免费视频大全 | 在线播放三级 | 欧美色视频网 | 国产精品第一区 | 国产高清在线精品免费 | saoav| 色婷婷综合网 | 日本加勒比视频在线观看 | 成人影院av | theporn国产在线精品 | 精品一区二区三区四区五区 | 91免费网| 三区在线视频 | 成人激情视频网站 |