COMPARING NO-FAULT COMPENSATION SYSTEMS FOR VACCINE INJURY

The policy responses to redressing serious adverse reactions caused by vaccines are many and varied. Scholars have identified three broad options for responding to the need for support of those who have been subject to vaccine injury. The first is a minimalist approach that entails injured persons bearing the costs associated with their injuries with assistance provided solely by means of standard social welfare and health benefits provided by the state. Second, compensation may be sought through legal proceedings brought against those responsible for producing, or in certain cases distributing, the vaccines in question. Third, compensation may be sought from a dedicated compensation scheme outside the normal litigation system, generally premised upon no-fault liability. The discussion in this Article focuses on the latter schemes, which are generally government-created and specifically respond to vaccine injuries. The advantages of such a mechanism over the other options, which entail either patients bearing the costs themselves or seeking compensation though litigation against private sector, have been widely discussed, and we will also examine the broader rationales below.