Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T03:39:52.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pertussis Vaccine Litigation in Three Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Colin L. Campbell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to review the nature and extent of pertussis vaccine litigation in Great Britain, Canada and the United States. It is not intended to deal in detail with the medical or scientific controversy that surrounds this vaccine except to the extent necessary to explain the litigation.

In order to understand what has been called by some a growth industry for lawyers, one must have a basic understanding of the nature of the disease and the nature of the vaccine and know something about the neurological development of the young child.

The disease whooping-cough (pertussis) is well known as an acute and distressing infection of the respiratory tract. Although less frequent in recent years, it has been a disease relatively common in infant children.

The disease is caused by a bacterium known as Bordetella pertussis, which produces catarrhal coughing that results in repetitive, explosive or paroxysmal coughing.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 18 , Issue 1-2 , Summer 1990 , pp. 59 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A list of the significant literature may be found in Appendix 4 of Loveday v. Renton, The Times, 30 March 1988, No. 1982 L.1812 Queens Bench.Google Scholar
The Honourable Mr. Justice Osler, Rothwell v. Raes (1989) 66 O.R. (2nd) 449 at 464.Google Scholar
Bonthrone v. Millan (10 Oct. 1981, unreported, Court of Session, Scotland).Google Scholar
Kinnear v. DHSS & Others [1984] CLY 2321.Google Scholar
Right Honourable Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Loveday v. Renton, supra.Google Scholar
Stromsodt v. Parke-Davis, 257 F.Supp. 991 (1966), United States District Court, District of North Dakota, Ronald N. Davies, District Judge.Google Scholar
Id. at 995.Google Scholar
Id at 996–97.Google Scholar
Parke-Davis and Co. v. Stromsodt, 411 F.2nd 1390 (1969), Eighth Circuit, p. 1398.Google Scholar
285 F.Supp. 432 (1968), United States District Court.Google Scholar
598 F.2nd 727 (1979) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.Google Scholar
Toner v. Lederle, 799 F.2nd 1429 (9th Cir. 1986) United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Google Scholar
Toner v. Lederle, supra, pp. 304–05.Google Scholar
See supra notes 9 and 10.Google Scholar
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, July 1987; and supra, note 12.Google Scholar
Graham v. Wyeth, United States District Court, District of Kansas, 666 F. Supp. 1483; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6612; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P11, 539, July 21, 1987.Google Scholar
Graham v. Wyeth, supra, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
Graham v. Wyeth, supra. p. 12.Google Scholar
See both the English and Canadian cases where the NCES formed an important part of the analysis.Google Scholar
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, July 1987.Google Scholar
691 F.Supp. 1346.Google Scholar
Patten v. Lederle Laboratories 676 F.Supp. 233.Google Scholar
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division March 29, 1988.Google Scholar
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith.Google Scholar
Loveday v. Renton supra, p. 66.Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
Id. at 66–7.Google Scholar
Id. at 13.Google Scholar
Id. at 70.Google Scholar
Id. at 71.Google Scholar
Id. at 73.Google Scholar
Id., ch. 12 and 13, pp. 1–65; Graham v. Wyeth, supra.Google Scholar
Loveday v. Renton, supra, pp. 74–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989) 66 O.R. (2nd) 449.Google Scholar
Rothwell v. Raes, supra, p. 455.Google Scholar
Id. at 456.Google Scholar
Id. at 457.Google Scholar
Id. at 460.Google Scholar
Id. at 474–75.Google Scholar
Id. at 475.Google Scholar
Id. at 502–03.Google Scholar
Id., briefly summarized at 507.Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
Id. at 514.Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
McGhee v. National Coal Board [1972] 3 All E.R. 1008; Loveday v. Renton, supra.Google Scholar
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 (1979 C.17) as amended 1985 C.53, s.23.Google Scholar
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986, No. 99–660 (1987).Google Scholar
Medico-Legal Society of Toronto submission to Prichard Commission on Health Care Liability Cost Issues dated November 24, 1988.Google Scholar