Abstract
Despite its being deliberated since at least the 1980s, a national vaccine injury compensation program still does not exist in Canada. The omission of such a program stands as a gap in Canadian immunization policy in comparison to many other equivalently developed countries. This article outlines the arguments for a compensation program and the design elements that would be best suited to a program in the Canadian context.
Résumé
Bien qu’on en délibère depuis au moins les années 1980, il n’existe pas encore, au Canada, de programme national d’indemnisation pour préjudice causé par la vaccination. L’absence d’un tel programme constitue une lacune dans la politique canadienne d’immunisation par rapport à celle de beaucoup d’autres pays au même stade de développement. Notre article présente l’argumentation en faveur d’un programme d’indemnisation et les éléments structuraux qui conviendraient le mieux à un tel programme dans le contexte canadien.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Evans G. Vaccine injury compensation programs worldwide. Vaccine 1999;17(Suppl 3):S25–S35.
Canadian Pediatric Society. In support of a compensation plan for vaccine-associated injuries. CMAJ 1986;135:747–49.
Keelan J, Wilson K. A proposal for a no-fault compensation programme for vaccine injuries. Munk School Briefings. Toronto, ON: Munk School of Global Affairs, February 2011.
Rea E, Upshur R. Semmelweis revisited: The ethics of infection prevention among health care workers. CMAJ 2001;164(10):1447–48.
Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Immunization Guide, Seventh Edition, 2006.
Fritzell B. Detection of adverse events: What are the current sensitivity limits during clinical development? Vaccine 2001;20(Suppl 1):S47–S48.
Plotkin SA. Lessons learned concerning vaccine safety. Vaccine 2001;20(Suppl 1):S16–S19; discussion S1.
Evans G. Update on vaccine liability in the United States: Presentation at the National Vaccine Program Office Workshop on strengthening the supply of routinely recommended vaccines in the United States, February 12, 2002. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42(Suppl 3):S130–S137.
US Court of Federal Claims. The role of traditional tort law and the impact of Althen, Capizzano, and Pafford on the proof of causation in the vaccine cases. Available at: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/061025.pdf (Accessed January 31, 2012).
Offit PA. Vaccines and autism revisited—the Hannah Poling case. N Engl J Med 2008;358(20):2089–91.
Keelan J, Wilson K. Balancing Vaccine Science and National Policy Objectives: Lessons From the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Am J Public Health 2011;101(11):2016–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Acknowledgements: Dr. Keelan is supported by an Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Career Scientist Award. Dr. Wilson is supported by a Canada Research Chair in Public Health Policy. This article is based on research supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, K., Keelan, J. The Case for a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for Canada. Can J Public Health 103, 122–124 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404215
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404215