We can help you claim
compensation following an accident
illness or injury - nationwide
Call: 0800 10 757 95
As the hysteria surrounding swine flu reaches its own pandemic levels, I was wondering what bearing it had on the personal injury solicitor's office in which I work. Only to be almost instantaneously presented with an article from yesterday's Independent (Sunday 19th July) that suggests use of the vaccine may lead to product liability claims because safety trials have not been fully completed.
And then, as if to underline the widespread concern, one of my colleagues went home fearing he may be contagious. He did not imply he was suffering from the dreaded lurgy, but certainly feared that he was unnecessarily spreading germs to his co-workers, and I have heard from a source close to me that, in his workplace, anyone showing flu-like symptoms has been told to stay away for seven days.
The cynic in me thinks it will cue much fake sneezing and unnecessary rustling of tissues in front of the PC.
However, as the government advice, counter advice and general media frenzy spews all sorts of conflicting information into the path of the general public regarding who is at risk, who should travel, who shouldn't travel and who will get the initial batches of new vaccine, I was struck with a feeling of intense anger.
Not only has the media, in my opinion, oversold the dangers of the latest flu virus – flu kills people every year, that's why my elderly parents have annual flu shots – but they are now bandying around words like ‘compensation' and that can only lead to further battering down of doctor's doors.
The Independent on Sunday reported its understanding that "the UK" (not specifying who in the UK) "has signed an order that grants drug companies making the swine flu vaccine immunity from compensation claims by patients who suffer side effects". And after this fairly inflammatory statement the writer made mention of another article that had announced the vaccine would be given to high-risk groups before the final clinical trial results were in. On bringing up the other article I found it stated that the Government is trying to calm concerns over lack of testing on the vaccine that is soon to be put to use.
The article tells us that Professor Sir Gordon Duff, co-chairman of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, said the "benefits far outweigh the risks".
He reportedly added, "It is inconceivable that in the UK we would consider a vaccine without giving a full scientific appraisal of its benefits and theoretical risks. That is just what these risks are - theoretical."
I'm confused – firstly we're told it's inconceivable that we would use an untested vaccine and then someone, on behalf of the entire population of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, signs a waiver against vaccine related product liability claims that may occur when mothers start giving birth to disabled babies (which I'm guessing is one of the theoretical risks).
And this is why I'm angry – people are scared and I think some of these things are just too inflammatory for precipitant release to people who are genuinely gripped by fear.
