Apportioning Liability In Mass Inoculations: A Comparison of Two Views and a Look at the Future
Introduction
In 1976, the federal government embarked on the unprecedented task of immunizing the entire adult population against the threat of one disease–Swine Flu. Many of the difficulties encountered by the program planners resulted from the need for a scheme that would apportion liability for injuries associated with the inoculation program. The Swine Flu inoculations were officially haltedon December 16, 1976; the socio-epidemiological and legal ramifications of this Program demonstrate the need for a permanent national scheme for ensuring the safe production and dissemination of vaccines when threats of epidemics arise in the future.
Public Law No. 94-380 is the congressional response to the problem of apportioning liability in mass inoculations. The judicial reaction to this problem of liability varies by jurisdiction and by theory of liability–i.e., negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort.
This Note compares the common law of liability in mass inoculations, asdeveloped by the courts, with the legislative model depicted by the Swine Flu Program. Both the judicial and legislative approaches are analyzed with respect to: principles of risk allocation, the peculiar nature of mass inoculations, the actions to which liability could attach, and the public policy priorities. Finally, a model is proposed for the long term solution to the mass inoculation problem.
Suggested Reading
Federal Menus and State Programs: An Intergovernmental Health Care Partnership for the 1990s
Discusses intergovernmental partnership as a method of implementing healthcare reforms, including past problems with delegating to states and possible remedies.
Access to Health Care: What Are the Barriers to Equitable Access and How Can They Be Overcome?
Discusses the many obstacles of making health care accessible to everyone, including lack of public resources.
The Clinton Health Plan: We Deserved Better
Examines flaws with the health care system despite the proposed reforms by the Clinton Administration.
Medicaid Reform, Prison Healthcare, and the Due Process Right to a Fair Hearing
Michael C. Danna∞ Abstract The healthcare provided to incarcerated individuals in the nation’s prisons falls far below that which is fair, just, or decent, and incarcerated individuals’ access to the civil justice system to demand better healthcare is fraught with