Liability for Serious Adverse Reactions from the Coronavirus Vaccine

The recent incidents involving blood clots and the JJ vaccine have once again brought the issue of vaccine liability to the forefront. Historically, pharmaceutical companies have held a unique position regarding liability, but recent developments in vaccine safety and a growing understanding of potential adverse reactions have raised questions about who should be held accountable.

Current Legal Framework and CDC/FDA Stance

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not definitively linked the blood clots to the vaccine, attributing them only to a possible causal relationship. This uncertainty has led to debates over liability, particularly when adverse reactions occur. As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has historically favored pharmaceutical companies in similar cases, like Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the legal landscape remains largely unchallenged.

No Accountability Despite Immunity

It is widely recognized that governments and pharmaceutical companies have been granted immunity from lawsuits, indicating that no one will face repercussions for any serious adverse events. This immunity is a result of the experimental nature of vaccines being used during a public health crisis.

Understanding Voluntarism and Liability

The debate over liability is further complicated by the concept of voluntarism. When individuals consent to receive a vaccine, they are presumed to have accepted all potential risks involved. However, if a side effect was intentionally undisclosed and known to the manufacturer, a different scenario emerges. In this case, the manufacturer could be held liable if evidence can be provided that they were aware of the side effect and failed to disclose it.

The legal principle of 'Volentii non-fit injuria' (volunteering therefore is not fit to claim for the injury) supports the notion that individuals voluntarily assuming risks cannot later claim damages. This principle underscores the importance of fully informed consent. For instance, if a government forces people to receive a vaccine, similar to historical cases of forced experimentation, this would not be a legitimate case for compensation.

Historical Context: Forced Experiments and Liability

To understand this better, consider historical examples such as the German operations during World War I, where prisoners of war were deliberately infected with TB, and the Nazi gas chambers during World War II. Both actions were explicitly planned with full knowledge of the consequences, yet the individuals involved could not seek recompense.

The film adaptation of The Boy in Striped Pyjamas provides a poignant illustration of this principle. The plot revolves around a young boy's father's role in a concentration camp, where he unknowingly attends to his dying son. The film's final scenes depict the horrors of the Holocaust, emphasizing the breakdown in moral and ethical standards.

Final Thoughts

While the theoretical framework supports the idea that individuals should bear the responsibility for their decisions, the practical implications of this stance are complex. The focus on informed consent and voluntary risk could be seen as a barrier to justice for those who might not have fully understood the potential consequences.

Ultimately, the debate over vaccine liability involves intertwining legal principles, public health priorities, and ethical considerations. As research and understanding of vaccines continue to evolve, so too will the debate on accountability for any serious adverse reactions.