Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a long awaited decision addressing the issue of whether or not parents could go outside the government’s “vaccine court” to sue drug makers for vaccine injuries.
The decision, called “a victory for vaccine makers such as Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline”, is a defeat for the many parents who placed their trust in the nation’s vaccine program.
The Washington Post reported that dissenting Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg expressed concern that confining parents to vaccine court would lessen the incentives for vaccine manufacturers to monitor and improve the vaccines they produce.
The Post article then turned it’s focus to the prevailing side, stating:
The majority said that Congress found such a system necessary to ensure that vaccines remain readily available…
Using that rational we could excuse exploding gas tanks because of the need to keep American car manufactures in business and American workers employed.
The judges in the majority expressed their feeling that:
…federal regulators are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.
Which could have just as easily been worded:
Those whose mission it is to ensure that as many men, women and children are vaccinated with as many, and as much vaccine as can possibly be absorbed, are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.
Justice Antonin Scalia, reflecting the judges’ blind faith in “science” wrote:
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 “reflects a sensible choice to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries”
Juries? Preposterous! How could they decide? After all they’re just made up of people and people get real confused when they encounter “science” and hear mystifying words such as epidemiology.
Justice Scalia failed to mention how juries can be relied on to decide criminal cases involving forensic evidence (a field that incorporates a number of scientific principles) but that’s another issue altogether.