Since the 1980s, when lawsuits nearly drove drug companies out of business, a special 'Vaccine Court' has been the route parents of children have to go if they suspect a vaccine was involved in their child's situation.
Is there truly due process if a plaintiff must go through a no-fault, no-jury court before being allowed to go to court? Some parts of American society are exempt from civilian courts, such as the military but does the Constitution protect drug companies the same way?
"We very much wanted to make sure vaccine manufacturers are out of the line of lawsuits," said Dr. O. Marion Burton, president of the AAP. "Otherwise, we end up with nobody producing vaccines, and nobody making new vaccines."
If the goal of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to protect pharmaceutical companies rather than children, we already have an alarm bell. If the Supreme Court uses social engineering reasoning in its case, it will be rather bad law, but that follows five decades of fairly bad law so the world won't end.
Vioxx is the obvious example where lawsuits brought enough pressure and enough studies to get a dangerous drug pulled. What did Merck immediately start to promote after they lost $5 billion in the Vioxx settlement? Gardasil, the HPV vaccine.
Full discussion of the implications and background on Livescience.
