Vaccine damage schemes in the US and UK reappraised: making them fit for purpose in the light of Covid-19

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Legal Studies Pub Date : 2022-03-07 DOI:10.1017/lst.2022.9
R. Goldberg
{"title":"Vaccine damage schemes in the US and UK reappraised: making them fit for purpose in the light of Covid-19","authors":"R. Goldberg","doi":"10.1017/lst.2022.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Vaccines have continued to play a crucial global role in preventing infectious diseases in the twenty-first century. The Covid-19 pandemic has underlined their importance, with vaccines seen as the best way to protect the public from coronavirus. A longstanding problem of governments has been the extent to which they should assume responsibility for the compensation of those injured by vaccines. This paper reappraises the vaccine damage schemes currently available in the US and UK in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic. It argues that any improvements to both US and UK schemes should be included in a revised national vaccine policy which takes into consideration their respective long-term national vaccine strategies to prepare for future pandemics. It supports the adoption of a UK-wide National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme, similar to the one in the US, to be administered by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. To balance the need for rigorous criteria to determine causation with the need for fairness, the programme should adopt the US practice of allowing negotiated settlements between parties in circumstances where review of the evidence has not concluded that the vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury but there are close calls concerning causation.","PeriodicalId":46121,"journal":{"name":"Legal Studies","volume":"42 1","pages":"576 - 599"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2022.9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Vaccines have continued to play a crucial global role in preventing infectious diseases in the twenty-first century. The Covid-19 pandemic has underlined their importance, with vaccines seen as the best way to protect the public from coronavirus. A longstanding problem of governments has been the extent to which they should assume responsibility for the compensation of those injured by vaccines. This paper reappraises the vaccine damage schemes currently available in the US and UK in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic. It argues that any improvements to both US and UK schemes should be included in a revised national vaccine policy which takes into consideration their respective long-term national vaccine strategies to prepare for future pandemics. It supports the adoption of a UK-wide National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme, similar to the one in the US, to be administered by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. To balance the need for rigorous criteria to determine causation with the need for fairness, the programme should adopt the US practice of allowing negotiated settlements between parties in circumstances where review of the evidence has not concluded that the vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury but there are close calls concerning causation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新评估美国和英国的疫苗损害计划:使它们符合2019冠状病毒病的目的
在21世纪,疫苗在预防传染病方面继续发挥着至关重要的全球作用。Covid-19大流行凸显了疫苗的重要性,疫苗被视为保护公众免受冠状病毒侵害的最佳方式。政府长期以来面临的一个问题是,他们应该在多大程度上为那些因疫苗而受伤的人承担赔偿责任。鉴于Covid-19大流行,本文重新评估了美国和英国目前可用的疫苗损害计划。它认为,美国和英国计划的任何改进都应该包括在修订后的国家疫苗政策中,该政策考虑到它们各自的长期国家疫苗战略,为未来的流行病做准备。它支持在全英国范围内采用一项全国疫苗伤害赔偿方案,类似于美国的方案,由卫生和社会保健国务大臣管理。平衡需要严格的标准来确定因果关系与公平的需要,美国计划应采取的做法允许协议各方之间在审查的证据的情况下,还没有得出结论,该疫苗(s)造成所谓的伤害但有比分接近的比赛有关因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Conspiracy! Or, when bad things happen to good litigants in person European human rights law and the legality of sex offence prosecutions based on deception as to gender history Deportation and human rights: the right to respect for private life in MK (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality Imprisonment for breach of injunctions: what is happening in the civil courts? Medical negligence and disclosure of alternative treatments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1