Drug Companies Cannot be Held Liable for Damages Suffered as a Result of Vaccinations

I'll admit it, the title to this piece doesn't seem like good news.  It's good when corporations are held accountable, right?  Well, yes and no. I'll explain.
The WSJ Law Blog reports that the US Supreme Court recently dismissed a case against vaccine manufactureres where the plaintiffs alleged that the vaccinations caused her autism.  The court based its dismissal of the allegations on a 1986 law that provides immunity (no pun intended) for makers of vaccines.

At first blush, neither this law, nor this decision, appear to make any sense.  Why on earth would you want to prevent putative victims from recovering?  The answer is that we, as a society, want to encourage vaccine makers.  Rather than having the specter of ruinous liability loom over drug companies like this episode of MacGyver, we want to provide an incentive for developing and distributing vaccines. 

But there is another reason why this is a policy we should stand behind. Approximately twelve years ago, a medical researcher working out of London named Dr. Andrew Wakenfield, published a study linking thimerisol to the development of autism.  Thimerisol is a mercury and aluminum based preservative that was used in MMR and other vaccines at the time.  The study was quickly debunked as fraudulent and unethical, and Britain stripped Wakenfield of his right to practice medicine.

However, as an extra measure of protection, thimerisol was abandoned as an ingredient in vaccines administered to young children.  Not surprisingly, studies following the removal of thimerisol showed no change in national autism rates.  But because of the media frenzy caused by Wakenfeild's study, childrens' vaccines still do not contain thimerisol.

Despite the quick debunking of Wakenfield's study, the world panicked.  Thousands of people refused to vaccinate their children.  To this day, the imaginary connection between vaccines and autism periodically shows up in the press.  I have also noticed that this dogmatic proposition survives even among educated people.  As we speak, the measles virus continues to attack an increasing numbers of Americans as a result of this destructive myth. 

As an aside, journalist Michael Specter discussed the increasing problem of "science denial" in a TED talk.  I won't incorporate everything he said, but I do encourage you to take a few minutes to listen to this fantastic speech.

So coming full circle, why is it good news that the allegations were dismissed?  Well, for those of us who believe that law shapes policy, this is a truly significant event.  It signifies the death knell of the science deniers' theory that vaccines cause autism.  As the WSJ puts it, this decision "takes a key legal tool out of the hands of those who contend their children’s autism was caused by vaccines."  There is now legal precedent that prevents parents from mounting legal attacks against drug companies in these cases.  This, in turn, prevents the proliferation of lies and superstition among Americans.  This means greater numbers of vaccinated people, and ultimately, less disease. This is a great triumph for mankind, and it is definitely good news.