학술논문

No-fault compensation schemes for COVID-19 vaccine injury: a mixed bag for claimants and citizens.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Macleod S; Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK sonia.macleod@csls.ox.ac.uk.; Uberti F; Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.; Kameni E; Afreximbank, Heliopolis, Egypt.; Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Source
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 7513619 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1473-4257 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 03066800 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Med Ethics Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) presented a unique set of challenges. There was a global need for safe, effective vaccines against a new virus. In response to the development of vaccines for COVID-19 (some of which used novel technologies), there was a proliferation of no-fault compensation schemes (NFCS) for COVID-19 vaccine injuries. We identified 28 national vaccine injury NFCS operating in December 2019. Just 2 years later, over 130 countries had some NFCS coverage for COVID-19 vaccines. This rapid expansion was primarily driven by the creation of three multinational schemes. The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) scheme covers vaccines given under the COVAX framework in 92 low and middle-income countries across the globe. The African Vaccines Acquisition Trust (AVAT) scheme covers vaccines administered under the AVAT framework in 36 African and Caribbean countries. The UNICEF scheme covers vaccines administered by UNICEF in 18 Asian countries.Because of the sudden expansion of no-fault compensation for vaccine injury, especially in developing economies, more research on the foundations, procedures and outcomes of NFCS is needed. In this article, we examine how these NFCS meet the needs of individual claimants and society more widely. To do so, we first review the rationales offered to support the creation of vaccine injury NFCS. We then argue that, in order to achieve their function as compensation mechanisms, NFCS should be accessible and offer substantive and procedural justice to claimants. Finally, we focus on transparency and accountability as necessary requirements to allow scrutiny over existing NFCS and their wider impacts.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: SM and FU have received research support from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA).
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)