>does it make sense for the compilation of a "Childhood Schedule of Products Which Train the Immune System to Recognise and Attack Something" be such a public health sensitive issue that a listing there can be the entry into complete product liability immunity?
I didn't get all of the recommended DTP shots as a kid because of the whole "parents sued the manufacturers over the side effects, after a while no manufacturer would make it anymore" thing. I'm the exact right age of tail-end Gen Xer to be affected by that. I then got whooping cough as a teen. No fun but survived fine.
And then the CDC changed the recommendations to a different vaccine anyway (DTaP, the one with *acellular* pertussis, as far as I can make out less effective and also with a lower risk of side effects. Info on how the aP vaccine doesn't prevent asymptomatic transmission used to be all over the net--I remember getting that info from the CDC web site back when my anti-most-vaxes in-laws all had whooping cough and I was deciding whether to get a Tdap--but when I went to find that info more recently, I couldn't find it anywhere).
So IDK if it "makes sense" but (as you probably already know) that whole thing was the justification for it--"If we keep letting parents sue manufacturer, they'll all be scared off from producing valuable vaccines that many people do want"...(see also the contingent who are constantly criticizing the FDA for not approving lifesaving medicines quickly enough).
It really should have occurred to them that the liability shield would create an incentive to get new products onto the childhood schedule. But I believe it didn't, because that's the kind of thing that often doesn't occur to people. It's not the spirit of the law, after all.
Re: Vaccines as a class
I didn't get all of the recommended DTP shots as a kid because of the whole "parents sued the manufacturers over the side effects, after a while no manufacturer would make it anymore" thing. I'm the exact right age of tail-end Gen Xer to be affected by that. I then got whooping cough as a teen. No fun but survived fine.
And then the CDC changed the recommendations to a different vaccine anyway (DTaP, the one with *acellular* pertussis, as far as I can make out less effective and also with a lower risk of side effects. Info on how the aP vaccine doesn't prevent asymptomatic transmission used to be all over the net--I remember getting that info from the CDC web site back when my anti-most-vaxes in-laws all had whooping cough and I was deciding whether to get a Tdap--but when I went to find that info more recently, I couldn't find it anywhere).
So IDK if it "makes sense" but (as you probably already know) that whole thing was the justification for it--"If we keep letting parents sue manufacturer, they'll all be scared off from producing valuable vaccines that many people do want"...(see also the contingent who are constantly criticizing the FDA for not approving lifesaving medicines quickly enough).
It really should have occurred to them that the liability shield would create an incentive to get new products onto the childhood schedule. But I believe it didn't, because that's the kind of thing that often doesn't occur to people. It's not the spirit of the law, after all.