By Dorit Reiss
COVID-19 vaccines are extremely safe, and serious harms are rare. But rare does not mean the risk is zero; thus, we need a way to determine which people have plausible claims of harm from the vaccines, and we must then compensate them quickly and generously. However, the regular torts system is not a good option for adjudicating these claims. Fortunately, we already have a better system — no-fault compensation — available to address the problem.
By Chloe Reichel and Valerie Gutmann Koch
Since the first days of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers, businesses, and other entities have anticipated litigation around tort claims associated with the novel coronavirus. Early in 2020, scholars here began to grapple with questions of tort liability relating to the pandemic response. However, nearly three years later, it appears that the warnings of a “tidal wave” of lawsuits were vastly overstated.
In this symposium, we asked torts scholars to reflect on questions surrounding whether and how individuals and entities might be held liable for the harms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly as infection has grown increasingly widespread and COVID mitigations have become more limited or entirely eliminated.
By Victoria Kalumbi
Despite pediatric COVID-19 vaccine availability, many youth remain unvaccinated, and are thus at higher risk of life-altering outcomes as a result of contracting COVID-19.[1]
Some children may be unvaccinated by no choice of their own, but instead because of decisions made by parents, guardians, or state or local government officials.
In this post, I argue that young people should have the opportunity to consent to vaccines. I focus on the specific case of children in foster care and the juvenile justice system, as they are particularly vulnerable amid the ongoing pandemic. However, the legal and political avenues explored in this piece to ensure that young people have a stake in their health and vaccine status are broadly generalizable to all children.
By Fatima Khan
When news broke last week that Pfizer-BioNTech was submitting for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) a two-dose COVID vaccine regimen for children under 5 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), many parents felt a glimmer of hope after a long time.
Up until a few days before, the public was expecting approval to possibly drag into summer. While the regimen would likely require a third dose, it became a possibility that children could start getting some level of protection as early as March. Finally children were acknowledged during a time when their needs have often been neglected or even ignored.
The shift in the FDA’s decision process is a critical moment to reflect on how we got here, and what we should strive for to ensure children aren’t repeatedly left behind amidst our new COVID reality.
By Carmel Shachar
As trials stall and the omicron variant surges, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is failing parents by preventing off-label use of our existing COVID-19 vaccines in the under-five set.
The cries of frustration, anger, and fear from parents of small children have reached a new pitch amidst the ruckus of 2022. Parents of children under five years old need to navigate omicron-fueled rising pediatric hospitalization rates while their kids remain entirely unvaccinated. They must also juggle childcare and work responsibilities amid unpredictable, lengthy daycare and schooling closures. Give us the vaccine to help protect our kids, shorten quarantines, and keep children in care they all clamor.
But where are the vaccines for the pediatric set — the same vaccines that have been proven safe, both in adult populations and in older children? So far the story has focused on disappointing efficacy results and delays in studies from Pfizer and Moderna. But that is not the entire explanation for why parents of small children are blocked from vaccinating their offspring.
By , , and
As children are experiencing the highest rates of COVID-19 in many states, can efforts to universally preclude vaccination of those under 12 until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically authorizes use in that age group be justified?
In a case commentary published today in Pediatrics, we argue that the answer is no.
This view diverges from the positions of the American Association of Pediatrics, FDA, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In fact, the CDC, which controls the nation’s supply of COVID-19 vaccines, has taken steps to currently ban the practice of vaccinating youth under the age of 12.
We acknowledge that recommendations to widely vaccinate 5-11 year olds should await FDA and CDC guidance (which is expected soon, given upcoming advisory committee meetings). But, especially at the lower dose offered in pediatric clinical trials, we think that off-label pediatric administration of approved COVID-19 vaccines, like Pfizer’s Comirnaty mRNA vaccine, should be treated like other off-label uses and left to the individual risk-benefit judgments of doctors and patients (or here, parents).
By Dorit Rubinstein Reiss
If COVID-19 vaccines lead to any serious harms, society should compensate those victims generously and quickly.
Currently, under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and providers are immune from liability.
Anyone seeking compensation for a severe side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine needs to go through a government program that is extremely narrow and hard to win; the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). The program requires “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence” to be compensated — a very high bar. It has compensated only a very small percentage of claims submitted over the years.
But we have an alternative. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) provides compensation under a much more generous standard. It has been used for years for childhood vaccines, and has served us well. While not perfect, it offers a decent path forward.
By Ana Santos Rutschman
As several pharmaceutical companies approach the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking authorization to bring COVID-19 vaccines to market, concerns about vaccine mistrust cloud the prospects of imminent vaccination efforts across the globe. These concerns have prompted some commentators to suggest that governments may nudge vaccine uptake by paying people to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
This post argues that, even if potentially viable, this idea is undesirable against the backdrop of a pandemic marked by the intertwined phenomena of health misinformation and mistrust in public health authorities. Even beyond the context of COVID-19, paying for vaccination is dubious public health policy likely to backfire in terms of (re)building public trust in vaccines.
By Alex Stein
My friend and mentor, the former Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak, used to say that when neither side likes the court’s decision, chances are that the court was right. This is likely to be the case with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision on vaccine manufacturers’ liability, N.W. et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur MSD, C‑621/15. Popular press reacted to this decision with sharp criticism that included unsubstantiated assertions about the European law of products liability, about what the Court did and did not say, and about the economics of vaccines. My short blog-post, which appeared here, offered a more positive (and hopefully more informative) assessment of this decision and its implications. I argued that the decision was balanced and well grounded in the principles of evidence and products liability. The follow-ups and subsequent analyses that appeared in Nature, Science and Hipertextual (in Spanish) have largely vindicated the decision (while citing some of its critics alongside the decision’s supporters such as myself).
To remove any remaining confusion about the implications of the ECJ decision, I thought I should clarify the Court’s statement that a vaccine liability suit can only succeed when the plaintiff proves that the vaccine complained against was “defective” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Council Directive on products liability (85/374/EEC) (the Directive). Critics of the Court’s decision have uniformly missed this important proviso. Read More
By Alex Stein
Yesterday, the European Court of Justice has issued an important ruling on vaccine manufacturers liability. N.W. et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur MSD, C‑621/15. This ruling triggered a hailstorm of criticism from different media outlets, including CNN. These outlets, however, have largely misreported the ruling and its underlying reasons, partly because of this misleading Press Release issued on behalf of the Court itself. In this post, I analyze the Court’s actual decision and briefly compare it with the American law.
The case at bar was about an adult patient who developed multiple sclerosis shortly after being vaccinated against Hepatitis B. The vaccination he received was manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur. Following the patient’s death from multiple sclerosis, his family filed a products liability suit against the company. The suit was filed in a French court, whose decision on evidentiary matters triggered a series of appeals that brought the case before the European Court of Justice. The Court was asked to determine whether the French evidentiary rule which allows plaintiffs to prove the vaccine’s defect and causation by “serious, specific and consistent evidence” in the absence of medical research in either direction aligns with the European law of products liability. The Court ruled that it does while making a number of clarifications and setting up conditions for such rules being valid under Article 4 of the European Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985. Read More