Abstract
Despite its being deliberated since at least the 1980s, a national vaccine injury compensation program still does not exist in Canada. The omission of such a program stands as a gap in Canadian immunization policy in comparison to many other equivalently developed countries. This article outlines the arguments for a compensation program and the design elements that would be best suited to a program in the Canadian context.
Keywords: Vaccines, immunization, program development, compensation and redress, insurance, liability
Résumé
Bien qu’on en délibère depuis au moins les années 1980, il n’existe pas encore, au Canada, de programme national d’indemnisation pour préjudice causé par la vaccination. L’absence d’un tel programme constitue une lacune dans la politique canadienne d’immunisation par rapport à celle de beaucoup d’autres pays au même stade de développement. Notre article présente l’argumentation en faveur d’un programme d’indemnisation et les éléments structuraux qui conviendraient le mieux à un tel programme dans le contexte canadien.
Mots clés: vaccins, immunisation, mise au point de programmes, indemnisation et réparation, assurance, responsabilité légale
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: Dr. Keelan is supported by an Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Career Scientist Award. Dr. Wilson is supported by a Canada Research Chair in Public Health Policy. This article is based on research supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Evans G. Vaccine injury compensation programs worldwide. Vaccine. 1999;17(Suppl3):S25–S35. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(99)00291-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Canadian Pediatric Society. In support of a compensation plan for vaccine-associated injuries. CMAJ. 1986;135:747–49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Keelan J, Wilson K. A proposal for a no-fault compensation programme for vaccine injuries. Munk School Briefings. Toronto, ON: Munk School of Global Affairs; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rea E, Upshur R. Semmelweis revisited: The ethics of infection prevention among health care workers. CMAJ. 2001;164(10):1447–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Immunization Guide. Seventh Edition 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Fritzell B. Detection of adverse events: What are the current sensitivity limits during clinical development? Vaccine. 2001;20(Suppl1):S47–S48. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00291-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Plotkin SA. Lessons learned concerning vaccine safety. Vaccine. 2001;20(Suppl1):S16–S19. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00303-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.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, February 12, 2002. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(Suppl3):S130–S137. doi: 10.1086/499592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.US Court of Federal Claims. The role of traditional tort law and the impact of Althen, Capizzano, and Pafford on the proof of causation in the vaccine cases. 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Offit PA. Vaccines and autism revisited—the Hannah Poling case. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(20):2089–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0802904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Keelan J, Wilson K. Balancing Vaccine Science and National Policy Objectives: Lessons From the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(11):2016–21. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]