Congress Revokes Protections To Vaccine Manufacturers
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON – Parents of autistic children will regain the chance to sue vaccine manufacturers like Eli Lilly and Co. now that Congress has rescinded a recent measure that shielded the drug industry from lawsuits.
In the last few years, a growing number of parents, including several in the SouthCoast, have sought to hold Eli Lilly accountable for their children’s autism, a brain disorder found in fewer than 1 percent of children. However, a pair of paragraphs tucked into last year’s Homeland Security Act insulated vaccine makers from lawsuits and left parents to petition the federal government for compensation.
Last week, the provision was taken out just as quietly as it was put in. Congress slipped a measure to undo the provision into its omnibus spending package, a 3,000-page package of must-pass legislation that was expected to receive President Bush’s approval this week.
Robert Bonsignore, a Medford lawyer for parents with claims against vaccine makers, said removing the protections for drug makers was a “step in the right direction.” Still, he criticized Congress for sending an unclear message.
“They took the rights away, and then they give them back, and what does that accomplish other than causing more confusion?” he asked.
Mr. Bonsignore said that he does not expect new lawsuits to spring up. Most parents with claims already have been redirected to the federal government’s vaccine injury compensation program, which he said places the burden of compensating victims on consumers, not manufacturers. Some of those cases may now be reopened as lawsuits.
Critics have said the anti-lawsuit provision had no place in the homeland security bill. That bill was rushed through Congress at the president’s urging toward the end of last year.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, blamed Republicans for inserting the provision into the high-priority homeland security bill. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the new Republican leader in the Senate, had pushed legislation last term that would have extended broad protections to companies involved in vaccine production.
Ideologically, Rep. Frank said, the GOP is inclined to side with the drug makers over victims.
“They think lawsuits are a bad thing,” Rep. Frank said. “They think suits are inefficient. I disagree.”
Republicans also were responding to heavy lobbying by Eli Lilly, Rep. Frank said.
Ed Sagebiel, a spokesman for Eli Lilly, said that the company was disappointed that Congress repealed the provision protecting vaccine makers but added that he agreed with critics who said that its inclusion in the Homeland Security Act “was not desirable.”
“Ideally, what you want to have is a piece of legislation that everyone has had an opportunity to debate and that passes on those merits,” Mr. Sagebiel said. “That healthy debate did not occur.”
Mr. Sagebiel expressed hope that Senate Republicans will see fit to reinstating the anti-lawsuit language. Under the compromise to revoke the provision, the Senate is to reevaluate the compensation program within the coming months.
Plaintiffs allege that their children’s autism was caused by thimerosal, a compound found in a variety of childhood vaccines that Eli Lilly produces. About 1,700 cases linking the compound to autism have been brought before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims here, according to the court’s chief special master, Gary Golkiewicz.
The court plans to decide on the medical issues that the cases have in common to determine which awards are appropriate, Mr. Golkiewicz said.
Since the early 1990s, the rate of autism has increased enormously, according to the Autism Research Institute in California. Researchers are still unclear on what has caused the increase. However, the institute suggests that infant vaccination is the “most likely” cause.
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
