Vaccination Litigation: The Need for Rethinking Compensation for Victims of Vaccination Injury

Abstract

Opposition to vaccination has a lengthy history dating back to shortly after the discoveries by Jenner in relation to smallpox. In recent years though governments have sought to counter the concerns of anti-vaccinationists in a variety of ways, including legislatively in Australia, in an effort to protect against childhood diseases and to maintain herd immunity. However, cases continue to make their way through the courts where parents oppose the vaccination of their children, often inspired by the views of both registered and unregistered health practitioners, including homeopaths and chiropractors. This article catalogues recent decisions by the courts in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada, most of which are in favour of vaccination and have dismissed the arguments of those opposed to vaccination as unscientific. It argues that Australia should give serious consideration to emulating the model existing in multiple countries, including the United States, and should create a no-fault vaccination injury compensation scheme.

Keywords: Children's Court; Family Court; anti-vaccination movement; best interests of children; compensation; herd immunity; homeopathy; immunisation; non-adversarial procedures; vaccination.