Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

(a) To insert the following words after "decade;":“— a number of individuals who have received the vaccine have experienced severe health problems in the time period after receiving the vaccine;"

and(b) To insert the following words after "secondary school; and":"calls on the Government to:

— instruct the HSE to engage with those who have experienced health problems in the time period after receiving the HPV vaccine in order to determine the cause of that damage;

— ensure proper medical and other support is available to those who have suffered health problems in the time period after receiving the HPV vaccine, whatever the ultimate cause of that damage;

— fulfil the programme for Government commitment to put in place a scheme, on a no-fault basis, that will respond to the needs of people with disability arising from vaccination;"

I will concentrate my remarks on the amendment.

I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Like everyone else, I think we must start from the point that vaccinations have made an enormous contribution to public health around the globe. They have transformed the situation for ordinary people, particularly the vulnerable. That is critical. Such recognition does not mean, however, that in the minority of cases where people will have an adverse reaction to a vaccination there is not a certain responsibility to deal with those people. I think there is, and, in fairness, the programme for Government recognises that also when it calls for the long awaited and long-lobbied for national vaccine injury compensation scheme. Let us be clear that if we want people to support vaccination programmes and overcome their concerns, the best way of achieving that is to provide such a scheme. It is proven that it would have an impact on increasing rates of participation in schemes and have a far more positive outcome in that regard than the manner in which much of this debate has been conducted so far not in this House tonight, but in society over the past period. People who have raised doubts, asked questions and have seen their loved ones suffering ill effects having received a vaccination have been vilified and demonised for asking those questions. This is abhorrent, and it is increasingly becoming a mark of discourse in society not only on this issue, but a number of others.

My daughter is celebrating her 18th birthday today - I said I would try to get that on the record at some stage. She received the vaccination along with many others but some of those girls, whose parents also trusted and who also received the vaccine, unfortunately, are perhaps not in such good health as they were previously. I am not saying that is connected with the vaccination but nobody can say positively that it is not. What we can say with absolute certainty is that severe health problems exist in those young girls. All the amendment calls for is that the health service engages with them and their families to determine the cause and also to support them in their medical care. Critically, it calls on the Government to fulfil the programme for Government commitment to introduce a no-fault vaccination scheme. If we did that, we would make this society much safer and improve vaccination rates.

In 2001, the Oireachtas health committee recommended that such a scheme be put in place. Eight years on, the vaccine damage steering group stated that there is an onus on the State to look sympathetically at the very rare number of cases where children suffer serious adverse reactions as a result of vaccination. The group followed that up by stating that this should be through a no-fault compensation scheme. Such a scheme operates in 19 countries worldwide. It reflects the fact that it is fair and reasonable that a community that is protected by a vaccination programme accepts responsibility for and provides compensation to those who are injured by it.

The numbers may be small. Figures from the US no-fault scheme show that for every 1 million vaccine doses eligible for compensation that were distributed between 2008 and 2016, the court compensated one injury. At one in 1 million, the number is small but that does not mean it is non-existent. Depending on the gravity of the disease in question, obviously, receiving a vaccine is far less dangerous than remaining unvaccinated. The tetanus vaccine, for example, causes a life-threatening allergic reaction in at most 0.0006% of those who receive it, while the fatality rate from tetanus is 13.2%. From the point of view of public health, it is far better that people are vaccinated, but some are injured by it and we need to take steps to deal with them.

It is inevitable, when one is giving a drug to hundreds of thousands of people, that small numbers will not react to it well. We know what happened in the Pandemrix situation which caused narcolepsy in some recipients. It happened with the three-in-one vaccine administered in Ireland in the 1970s which caused brain damage in a very small number of cases. Other vaccines caused less serious injuries.

On the rare occasions where things go wrong, the State has a responsibility to mitigate it. The alternative is that families are forced to slog their way through litigation which drags on for years, at enormous stress to them and enormous cost to the State. We are seeing exactly that happening with the Pandemrix cases right now. There is no argument whatsoever that Pandemrix caused narcolepsy in some of those who received it. There is a proven and accepted link between the two. Despite this, the first compensation claim for damage by the drug, which the HSE continued to administer after knowing there was a proven link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy, has not even been allowed to start in the courts. That is because, 16 months after an order for discovery of documents was made by the High Court in November 2016, the HSE has not yet complied in full. This is outrageous. Individuals debilitated by narcolepsy as a result of being given a drug that the HSE knew caused a serious illness should not have to fight for years to be compensated. It is unspeakable as far as I am concerned. That is why the no-fault vaccine scheme was recommended by so many health committees. That is why, I presume, it is in the programme for Government.

Another reason it is urgent is that if one is brought in, it would increase vaccination rates. That will be the positive impact of it. What is happening with Pandemrix will not instil confidence. In fact, it will make parents doubt the HSE and believe the State is circling the wagons and is not taking any responsibility for its action by stating one should trust it and all will be well and good.

There is no sin in admitting that in a small number of cases - one in a million or fewer - somebody will suffer damage from a vaccine. I accept people are bad at understanding risk. People are more afraid of flying than they are of driving when everybody knows it is far more dangerous to drive than to fly but that does not mean one denies the small risk involved, and it does not mean one should not drag people through years of litigation. No fault compensation schemes are critically important. They will make it easier for everybody. They will make vaccinations much more acceptable and protect public health in that regard. In that sense, the amendment is an important addition to the motion.

See this speech in context