Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Guest Editorial

Protecting vaccine programs and the public

Kumanan Wilson
CMAJ June 05, 2007 176 (12) 1681; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070610
Kumanan Wilson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2007 Canadian Medical Association

In 1986, this journal published an article by the Canadian Pediatric Society calling for Canada to develop a no-fault compensation program for vaccination injuries.1 More than 2 decades later there is no such national system in place, despite repeated calls for its introduction. However, recent developments, including the possible need to administer to millions of Canadians an incompletely tested pandemic influenza vaccine and the rapid increase in recommended pediatric vaccines, make the creation of a no-fault program a national priority.

The fundamental premise behind a no-fault compensation system is that people receive immunization not only for their own benefit but also for the benefit of the community. Therefore if, in the process of contributing to this public good, an individual should be harmed, there is a strong ethical argument that they should be compensated. This compensation process should bypass the legal system, which is not well suited to addressing these injuries. Justice Horace Krever's landmark report on the tainted blood tragedy called for a no-fault compensation system for those infected by contaminated blood products, arguing that such people, already harmed once, should not have to endure the legal process to seek redress.

In the 1980s, the United States introduced no-fault compensation for 2 reasons apart from the ethical and social-justice arguments. First, a crisis in public confidence in vaccination resulted in decreasing coverage rates. Second, hundreds of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers were rapidly crippling the industry. Many manufacturers ceased producing vaccines, which created supply shortages, increased vaccine costs and discouraged innovation.2 The US no-fault system requires that individuals demonstrate that an acknowledged adverse reaction occurred within a specified period after vaccination. Compensation is then based on predetermined amounts depending on the extent of injury. In retrospect, the introduction of the no-fault program has been viewed as a success and credited with, in part, re-establishing public confidence in vaccines and providing a secure environment for vaccine manufacturers — while also providing compensation for those who have been injured.

In Canada, at present, we have no such crisis of confidence in vaccines, nor the same levels of concern about legal actions against our vaccine suppliers. Nevertheless, important points of concern are emerging. Perhaps most urgently, the necessarily rapid roll-out of vaccines in the event of pandemic influenza means that people will inevitably be exposed to vaccines for which there will be too little time for a complete determination of safety. Manufacturers may be uncomfortable releasing such vaccines in the absence of protection from liability, and some people may be uncomfortable receiving an incompletely tested vaccine, either of which would undermine efforts to control the pandemic. A no-fault compensation program could address both of these concerns by legally protecting manufacturers and addressing the concerns of vaccine recipients. Second, public acceptance of the increasing numbers of recommended childhood vaccines may eventually reach its limits. A no-fault compensation program could help sustain public support for vaccines as these programs continue to expand, by demonstrating public health's commitment to vaccine recipients. Third, with more vaccines being introduced, there is an increased likelihood of the emergence of a rare adverse event not identified in clinical trials. The existence of a compensation program could provide for the individuals harmed, helping to maintain the public's trust if and when such episodes occur.

No-fault compensation programs exist in at least 13 jurisdictions, including the United States and the province of Quebec.3 The programs have been shown to be both feasible and cost-effective. Parliament could probably pass a law creating the program without much controversy. How much would be paid in case of injury and how the system is paid for are, of course, hugely important details, but we would have the benefit of learning from other countries' experiences.

We should not wait for the factors that triggered the US adoption of no-fault compensation to emerge in Canada before instituting such a program. Once public confidence is lost, it is difficult to regain — and our vaccine programs are too important to the protection of our population's health to take this risk. Most importantly, Canada should institute no-fault compensation, because it is the just and ethical way to provide for the very rare individual who has been harmed by a vaccine.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Canadian Pediatric Society. In support of a compensation plan for vaccine-associated injuries. CMAJ 1986;135:747-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Evans G. Update on vaccine liability in the United States: presentation at the National Vaccine Program Office Workshop on strengthening the supply of routinely recommended vaccines in the United States, 12 February 2002. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42(Suppl 3):S130-7.
  3. 3.↵
    Evans G. Vaccine injury compensation programs worldwide. Vaccine 1999;17(Suppl 3):S25-35.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 176 (12)
CMAJ
Vol. 176, Issue 12
5 Jun 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Protecting vaccine programs and the public
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Protecting vaccine programs and the public
Kumanan Wilson
CMAJ Jun 2007, 176 (12) 1681; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.070610

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Protecting vaccine programs and the public
Kumanan Wilson
CMAJ Jun 2007, 176 (12) 1681; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.070610
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Managing physician shortages: We are not doing enough
  • Mentally ill youth: meeting service needs
Show more Guest Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: immunologic
    • Health policy
    • Medical ethics
    • Medicine & the law (including forensic medicine)

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire