This is the manual about law and vaccines prepared in collaboration between myself, Amanda Naprawa and Voices for Vaccines. It covers a range of issues.
Vaccines: Regulating the Product
Protecting the Public Health: State and Federal Law
Disease Prevention: The CDC’s Role
School Immunization Requirements
Vaccines: Individual Choice and Community Welfare
Community vs. Individual: Achieving a Balance of Rights
Religion, Employment, and Rights
Parental Rights and the Child’s Right to Health
Informed Refusal: The Risks of Not Vaccinating
Increasing Immunization Rates: The Role of the Law
Government-Funded Incentives and Subsidies
Imposing Costs: Civil Lawsuits.
Imposing Costs: No-Fault Options
Limiting Unvaccinated Individuals’ Access
Vaccine Refusal and Criminal Law
Vaccine Injuries: Compensating the Rare Adverse Event.
NVICP vs. the Courts
Are Vaccines “Unavoidably Unsafe?”
This post, written with Arthur Caplan, responds to Alan Phillips’ claim that a law proposed in New York, a law that would allow teen agers to consent to certain vaccines – the HPV and Hepatitis B vaccine – without needing parental permission is unconstitutional and illegal. The post explains why the law is both legal and justified.
The Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice proposed a very problematic law that could mislead parents into not vaccinating because of false claims and would go against public policy. This post explains the problems with the law.
This post responds to the anti-vaccine claim that by reversing the finding that Prof. John Walker-Smith, the senior author on Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet paper, was guilty of serious ethical violations, a British Court also cleared Andrew Wakefield from the findings of a General Medical Council panel against him. No, that is incorrect.
Andrew Wakefield filed a libel suit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and the British Medical Journal with the Texas Court, seen by many as an attempt to punish critics and galvanize supporter. These posts cover the story of that appeal.
- Andrew Wakefield’s suit against Brian Deer and BMJ rejected by the Court of Appeals: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/litigating-debate-tactic-andrew-wakefields-appeal-denied/
- Andrew Wakefield asks the Supreme Court for extension of time to file with them: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/andrew-wakefield-keeps-trying-appeal/
So far, no appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
This article covers three situations in which anti-vaccine activists mounted unjustified, problematic attacks against critics, in an attempt to silence them:
A. Attempting to get Dr. Paul Offit fired over a comment about autism.
B. Threatening Dr. Emily Willingham with a lawsuit with no basis.
C. Attacking high school students who made a pro-vaccine film.
Responding to Attorney Alan Phillips’ claims claiming that there are many things unconstitutional or illegal in imposing such mandates.
This is the second in a two-part series: in the first part, Skeptical Raptor tackles Attorney Phillips’ science-based claims. Here, I address his legal claims. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/natural-news-wrong-mandatory-vaccinations-part-2/
This post is the second post to examine a recent New Jersey case addressing the situation of a nurse, June Valent, who was dismissed after refusing to be vaccinated against influenza. Her hospital offered a religious and medical exemption, but she refused to make use of them, emphasizing her reasons were secular. The hospital dismissed her and refused to pay unemployment benefits for seven weeks. The court found in her favor.
This post focuses on the question whether a healthcare worker opposing influenza vaccine mandates can demand a medical exemption under the Americans with Disabilities Act or a religious exemption under Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming discrimination.
This post examines a recent New Jersey case addressing the situation of a nurse, June Valent, who was dismissed after refusing to be vaccinated against influenza. Her hospital offered a religious and medical exemption, but she refused to make use of them, emphasizing her reasons were secular. The hospital dismissed her and refused to pay unemployment benefits for seven weeks. The court found in her favor.
The post explains the problems with the court’s decision, and the problems with the hospital’s policy from a constitutional point of view.
At the request of Congressman Darrell Issa, the General Accountability Office examined the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and made a report. This post summarizes the report and explains its findings, putting them in context.
In a series of articles in several news papers, authors reported on an associated press report and criticized the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for delays, claiming it mistreated petitioners. They used a case of an alleged vaccine injury to demonstrate the program’s faults.
This post explains the problems with the articles and with the use of the case in question:
On the background of attempts by anti-vaccine activists to do away with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, our no-fault program for compensating vaccine injuries, I explain why the program is better for petitioners than the regular courts.
What does informed consent mean, and what is needed to achieve informed consent in the vaccine context?
You may hear the claim that the Supreme Court declared vaccines “unavoidably unsafe”. That claim is doubly incorrect. Here is why.
Examination of a recent Oregon Supreme Court case that upheld a decision to vaccinate children in foster care when the parents objected – also review of other court decisions on topic:
The district court in Phillips upheld denying exemption and excluding unvaccinated children from school during an outbreak. We should mobilize.
I did not write about the appeal results in the 2nd Circuit court of appeals because there’s no new ground there. But here is a good analysis by Andy Baker from the Network for Public Health Law: https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2015/01/21/539/public_health_in_court_school_exclusion_of_unvaccinated_children
The effect of Hobby Lobby on school immunization requirements and especially on religious exemptions.
Two whistleblowers claim Merck faked data on mumps’ vaccine effectiveness. A court rejects a motion to dismiss. What are the issues?