For those who argue a vaccine is not a "medical intervention", I disagree.
This was reported in the Guardian in 2013:
"The government is to reverse its stance on the safety of a swine flu vaccine given to 6 million people in Britain and accept that on rare occasions the jab can trigger the devastating sleep disorder narcolepsy.
"The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has contacted people turned down for compensation last year to explain that, after a review of fresh evidence, it now accepts the vaccine can cause the condition. The move leaves the government open to compensation claims from around 100 people in Britain, and substantial legal fees if a group action drawn up by solicitors is successful.
"Peter Todd, who is preparing the case at the London firm Hodge, Jones and Allen, said that damages could reach £1m for each person...........................
"The condition is a rare but serious neurological disorder that affects about 31,000 people in Britain. The condition can cause massive sleep disruption. The worst hit are often young people who face enormous learning difficulties at school and university. The disorder can destroy self-esteem, and bullying is common. Adults can lose their jobs, their driving licences, and can have difficulties with relationships. Some narcoleptics have another condition called cataplexy, a total loss of muscle control.
"The government U-turn follows a major study of four- to 18-year-olds by the Health Protection Agency which found that around one in every 55,000 jabs was associated with narcolepsy. A spokesman for GSK said it had details of around 900 people from 14 countries who had narcolepsy and were vaccinated.""
It could be quite validly argued, I think, that the risk of vaccine damage is far less than the risk of serious illness or death from any given illness. However, to suggest that a vaccine is not a medical intervention which can, in rare cases, cause life-changing health issues, is misleading.
Perhaps if we could be sure that governments would always do the right thing and properly investigate the claims of people who say they have been affected by certain medical interventions, rather than try to sweep matters under the carpet, it would give me more confidence. But we have had several cases where liability has been strenuously denied but have later been proven, eg the contaminated blood and vaginal mesh scandals. There is also the issue of financial compensation. Drug companies have been exempted from liability by the government from any claims, and so claimants have to either accept the £120,000 limit on the government vaccine compensation scheme or, presumably, fight the matter out in court.