Covid vaccines also bring changes in the law

Thinking it over with Carol Fish Director & Head of Serious and Catastrophic Injury…

THE prospect of Covid vaccines starting to be rolled out in December and being widely available by Spring has given everyone reason for hope this Christmas that there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

There is no doubt 2020 has been a tough year for everyone. And as we prepare for a festive season like no other – where mixing will be briefly allowed between three households – we are being urged to continue to be cautious about our decisions.

That caution, we are told, is likely to need to be extended until next Spring.

Scientists have done an amazing job to develop vaccines so quickly. And we all hope this proves the turning point in dealing with this pandemic.

What this has also meant is that laws – especially the Human Medicine Regulations 2012  –  need to be changed.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, of which I am a senior litigator accredited member, were invited to take part in a consultation on the proposed changes and within their response they highlighted concerns regarding a consumer’s right to pursue any claim relating to adverse effects due to the vaccine itself or against the vaccinator in the rare event that serious injury results. 

APIL pointed out that the consultation document proposed no safeguard or redress for members of the public who receive the vaccine and indeed sought to remove or reduce existing rights while giving substantially increased protection from lawsuits to manufacturers and others involved in the administration of vaccines.  APIL called upon the Government to accept responsibility for the few who may suffer injury as a result of all vaccinations licensed in this country.  APIL pointed out that fortunately severe adverse reactions are extremely rare and the overall cost of the Government introducing an adequate compensation scheme would be very low.  Indeed the cost of a scheme would be offset by the costs saved by the increased rate of immunisation resulting from consumer confidence that they would be protected in the extremely rare circumstance that they suffered a significant adverse reaction to immunisation.

APIL also submitted that consumers should be given a very clear explanation of potential risks and should be told that they will be vaccinated with an unlicensed product which has not yet demonstrated the standards of safety which would usually be expected so that they can weigh up any risks and provide full consent to the vaccination.  It would certainly help if the Government would underwrite and accept liability in the event of any significant injury caused. 

Following the consultation, the Government made three key amendments to its proposals.

These include ‘requirements for the supervision of an additional experienced vaccinator’ in relation to the expanded workforce that can deliver Covid and flu vaccines.

The Government has also committed to a formal review of the new regulations allowing the use of unlicensed medicines or vaccines ‘within a year of any first use’.

It has also changed the ‘objective bystander’ test that relates to loss of immunity from civil liability where conditions are breached to make this a person who has ‘relevant expertise in the subject matter of the breach’.

We all want a vaccine and fortunately severe adverse reactions resulting in significant injury are exceedingly rare but consumers should be provided with clear information and a right of redress to justice where needed which should increase public confidence in the vaccine. It is vitally important that the relevant authorities put in place provisions to safeguard us all. That way we find a safe, as well as speedy, solution so we can all start looking towards next Spring with confidence.

You can contact Carol Fish on 01228 516666.