Vaccination News Home Page                                            subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter

http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/5/015415-9055-031.html

Thomas P. Wyman

Lilly vaccine issue will get front-door hearing it deserves

January 14, 2003

"Look, Ma, no hands!" As soon as you hear those words, you can bet what happens next is going to look ugly.

Ask Eli Lilly and Co.

Two months ago, a measure protecting Lilly from vaccine-related lawsuits turned up in a very unlikely place -- attached to the Homeland Security Act.

Lilly professed surprise and said it had no hand in the matter. Lilly wasn't steering the measure, the company says. Just going along for the ride.

Indeed, diligent searching turned up no identifiable Lilly fingerprints.

But, predictably, this careening ride through the halls of Congress has ended in a noisy crash.

On Friday, Senate Republicans agreed to repeal the Lilly lawsuit protection measure. The House quickly pledged to follow suit.

For nearly a year's lobbying, Lilly has come away with little more than a public relations black eye.

The White House and Congress drew up the Homeland Security Act to guard the nation against terrorists, not trial lawyers.

But must-pass legislation like this is particularly tempting to lobbyists. Get your pet measure attached to it, and it will pass into law. Nobody will dare vote no, or cast a veto, against critical legislation just to dunk a pesky rider.

What tempted Lilly was the prospect of shielding itself from lawsuits involving thimerosal, a vaccine preservative that contains mercury. Lilly no longer makes thimerosal.

Scores of parents of autistic children blame their kids' autism on thimerosal, and are suing. Lilly says the lawsuits are groundless.

Research on the question so far is inconclusive.

Last fall, Lilly spokesman Edward Sagebiel said Monday, Lilly asked Congress to add thimerosal lawsuit protection to the Homeland Security bill.

Lilly got the door slammed in its face. No way, the word came back. Congressional leaders wanted a clean bill -- one not burdened with lots of special favors.

At that point, Sagebiel says, "We stopped our lobbying efforts."

But when the measure emerged from Congress, lo and behold, there was the lawsuit protection.

There was no lack of suspects, including maybe some unidentified Capitol Hill ally of White House budget maestro Mitch Daniels, a former Lilly executive.

All denied involvement.

But Lilly nevertheless appeared to have benefited from someone's cynical manipulation of critical national security legislation.

In a statement released Friday, Lilly said it "agrees that the process by which this legislation was enacted was not desirable, and fully understands the action taken by the Senate."

The legislative sleight-of-hand that slipped the lawsuit shield into the Homeland Security Act didn't just put egg on Lilly's corporate face. It also heightened the suspicions of those parents who are suing.

And it's handed ammunition, at least in a public relations sense, to their attorneys.

Lilly's not giving up, though. It plans to pursue identical legislation this spring, Sagebiel says.

In that effort, the company has powerful political allies. The list includes Senate Majority Leader William Frist, a medical doctor who favors the lawsuit shield.

And that's the way to go about it. As a piece of separate legislation. Debated on its merits, in full public view.

Contact Thomas P. Wyman at 1-317-444-6424 or via e-mail at thomas.wyman@indystar.com

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.