Vaccine legal protection should be reconsidered -Opinion

[Guest guest]

http://tinyurl.com/be68o Saturday, 02/18/06 Vaccine legal protection should be reconsidered Stealth immunity provision would protect almost any drug maker from lawsuits Democrats in Congress should continue to press Republican leaders to repeal an immunity provision for vaccine makers — not just because it was bad legislation but because of the way it was handled. Serious questions remain about how the vaccine liability protection got into a Defense Department appropriations bill. Several witnesses have said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert inserted the language into the bill after a conference committee had adjourned. Frist denies that. A conference committee

works out the differences between a House bill and a similar bill in the Senate. Claims that leaders put liability language into the agreement after the committee had done its work must be addressed. A group of 20 Democrats in the House and Senate, including Sens. Kennedy, Dodd and Tom Harkin, have called on Frist and Hastert to repeal the "dead of night" liability provision and have offered an alternative proposal. The Democrats acknowledge the need to face concerns about possible litigation and say a plan is needed to supply vaccines and other drugs to combat an influenza pandemic or biological attack. They call for a program to limit legal liability for manufacturers and properly fund a compensation fund for injured patients. They also call for a requirement that all conference committee meetings be open to the public. They say the approved measure was a "stealth provision" shielding manufacturers from responsibility for making faulty drugs and vaccines and say the measure was approved "without congressional debate or public scrutiny." Democrats claim language in the

bill that was passed could be used to allow manufacturers of almost any drug or vaccine to avoid responsibility for negligence or criminal acts. They also note that the measure includes none of the funding that would be needed for compensation. They call the way the legislation was approved a "serious violation of congressional procedures." Frist still has the ability to clear up the issue. As majority leader, he should either establish that critics are wrong about the way the measure was approved or acknowledge that a more open process was needed. Above all, he should explain why a broad step favoring drug manufacturers was put in the bill. •

Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, more on new and used cars.