COVID-19 疫苗伤害的无过失赔偿计划:索赔者和公民的喜忧参半。

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Sonia Macleod, Francesca Uberti, Enga Kameni
{"title":"COVID-19 疫苗伤害的无过失赔偿计划:索赔者和公民的喜忧参半。","authors":"Sonia Macleod, Francesca Uberti, Enga Kameni","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-109900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"115-120"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No-fault compensation schemes for COVID-19 vaccine injury: a mixed bag for claimants and citizens.\",\"authors\":\"Sonia Macleod, Francesca Uberti, Enga Kameni\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2024-109900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"115-120\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-109900\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-109900","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) 疫苗的开发面临着一系列独特的挑战。全球都需要针对新病毒的安全、有效的疫苗。为了应对 COVID-19 疫苗的开发(其中一些疫苗采用了新技术),针对 COVID-19 疫苗伤害的无过失补偿计划 (NFCS) 大量涌现。我们发现,2019 年 12 月有 28 个国家的疫苗伤害 NFCS 在运行。仅仅两年后,就有 130 多个国家的 COVID-19 疫苗在一定程度上覆盖了 NFCS。这一快速扩张主要得益于三个跨国计划的建立。COVID-19 疫苗全球接种(COVAX)计划覆盖全球 92 个中低收入国家在 COVAX 框架下接种的疫苗。非洲疫苗获取信托 (AVAT) 计划涵盖 36 个非洲和加勒比海国家在 AVAT 框架下接种的疫苗。由于疫苗伤害无过失补偿的范围突然扩大,尤其是在发展中经济体,因此需要对无过失补偿制度的基础、程序和结果进行更多的研究。在本文中,我们将探讨这些 NFCS 如何满足个人索赔者和更广泛的社会需求。为此,我们首先回顾了支持建立疫苗伤害 NFCS 的理由。然后,我们认为,为了实现其作为补偿机制的功能,NFCS 应该便于使用,并为索赔者提供实质和程序上的公正。最后,我们将重点放在透明度和问责制上,将其作为对现有 NFCS 及其广泛影响进行审查的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No-fault compensation schemes for COVID-19 vaccine injury: a mixed bag for claimants and citizens.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信