A Vaccine for Lawsuits

Whose Hands Are Dirty?

By Bob Herbert
November 25, 2002
New York Times Editorial 

Last week the Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security and it will soon be signed into law by the president. Buried in this massive bill, snuck into it in the dark of night by persons unknown (actually, it's fair to say by Republican persons unknown), was a provision that - incredibly - will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal.

Now this has nothing to do with homeland security. Nothing. This is not a provision that will in any way protect us from the ferocious evil of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So why is it there? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the major drug companies have become a gigantic collective cash machine for politicians, and that the vast majority of that cash goes to Republicans.

Or maybe it's related to the fact that Mitch Daniels, the White House budget director, is a former Eli Lilly big shot. Or the very convenient fact that just last June President Bush appointed Eli Lilly's chairman, president and C.E.O., Sidney Taurel, to a coveted seat on the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Whether thimerosal causes autism or not is the subject of much debate, but the actions of Congress in providing Eli Lilly protection from lawsuits over this issue makes it look like they were anticipating a loss.

The problem, though, isn't whether thimerosal is hazardous or not.  The problem is that, once again, a corporation with strong political connections is being given the opportunity to avoid the hard questions and possible ramifications they would face if it is found that they have done something wrong.

The measure was justified as necessary to encourage pharmeceutical manufacturers to make vaccines that can be used in the event of a biological attack.  This could easily have been accomplished without providing blanket protection for potentially problematic vaccines in general.  The legislature could have been narrowly targeted at vaccines for agents likely to be used in a biological attack.  It could even have been specifically aimed at vaccines developed or manufactured after the date the bill was passed.  Either of those would provide the kind of protection that would help ease manufacturer's minds and make them more willing to produce the vaccines that might be needed should a biological attack take place, without also protecting one specific company from litigation over a vaccine additive that has not been used in making vaccines for roughly 8 years.