MMR campaigner wins £90,000 payout

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11125343

Good. I'm glad she finally got compensation. It must have really sucked being pigeonholed with the rest of the 'MMR-causes-autism' scaremongers for so long.

Last edited by Lene on 29 Aug 2010, 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its a slippery slope for more people coming forward with claims. Its not a good thing at all.

Even if it is a 'slippery slope' in that other parents with children affected in the same way come forward, they should be heard on an individual basis too. I think it's a shame it's taken this long for her to be listened to.

And where is any further payouts gonna originate from for british claimants? The Government? Yeah,, right, the ones who are cutting back on spendature. Tax payers aren't going to pay it, they would rather riot before paying extra monies for someone elses stupid remarks about this damm jab.

Maybe that's your personal opinion on the matter. Personally, I would not mind if my taxes went towards helping someone care for their disabled child. It is a lot of money, but it's way less than what it would cost to treat the thousands of children who would get measles, mumps and rubella from not being vaccinated. On a purely cost-benefit ratio, paying compensation to the few who actually do get genuine adverse side effects is not that much of a sacrifice.

By the way, the NHS allocates quite a hefty part of its budget towards compensation (litigation goes with the territory), so I doubt the tax payers would feel any more pinch than they already do.

I don't have a problem with the compensation program, either. In this case, there is good reason to believe the vaccine did damage. It has been known all along that a very few unlucky children will react poorly and be damaged; it is the cost of the herd immunity. It is still better than having infants die from the loss of the herd immunity, as has been happening where I live. That expenditure is part of all of us staying healthy.

The problem comes when parents inaccurately perceive the risk of vaccinating as being higher than the risk of not vaccinating.

It's not a slippery slope - there is some risk in vaccines - small risk of them not working, even smaller risk of something going wrong - in this case the latter happened and the family deserved compensation. It was the people falsely pushing the MMR-autism connection that delayed them getting compensation in that case, if there was justice, they should get sued for at least something.

T'aint unecessarily so topic

Some vaccines are tainted, as they are not stored correctly. I can see why the Fletcher family would get compensation.

This happened to some of the polio vaccines when they were first developed in the early 50s. Not all the patients got sick, but many did and some even died. In the summer of 1955 I received some of the first vaccine that was corrected after this earlier disaster.