To contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world, Taiwan included, have worked hard to roll out vaccines.
Many Taiwanese are worried about these vaccines’ possible side effects and adverse reactions. However, a rarely discussed issue in this regard is compensation in the event of death or injury from vaccination.
Although the Drug Injury Relief Act (藥害救濟法) is not applicable in those cases, injured parties can base claims on Article 30, Paragraph 1, of the Communicable Disease Control Act (傳染病防治法), as well as on Article 2 of the Regulations Governing Collection and Review of Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund (預防接種受害救濟基金徵收及審議辦法).
Based on these two laws, people can claim compensation from local authorities, such as health bureaus, in the cities or counties where they were vaccinated.
According to the disease control act, individuals are eligible for compensation if injury occurs after “the inoculation of vaccines that have been issued a permit or approved for importation under a special case status by the central competent authority and have been found qualified by testing or document review.”
People who have been injured after vaccination with a drug not covered in the act cannot claim compensation.
The ministry’s vaccine injury compensation working group is responsible for reviewing compensation claims under the act. In principle, the working group should complete the review of a case within six months.
On a case-by-case basis, reviewers categorize the relationship between vaccination and injury as “unassociated,” “associated” or “indeterminate.”
If vaccine and injury are deemed “unassociated,” the claimant will receive no compensation, even though a subsidy for medical treatment or funeral of up to NT$300,000 (US$1,071) might be granted.
If the injury is found to be “associated” with the vaccination, or if causation cannot be clearly determined, the reviewers might grant a compensation payment of up to NT$6 million.
Claimants who disagree with the panel’s decision can further apply for administrative remedy.
From a scientific perspective, it is assumed that vaccinations benefit public welfare, despite unpredictable risks.
If a member of the public sustains an injury after inoculation with a vaccine that is promoted or required by the government, this is considered a special case.
The government therefore offers vaccine injury compensation to eligible claimants, and requires drugmakers to contribute to a vaccine injury compensation fund.
However, that mechanism is not designed to have drugmakers fund compensation for injury due to their vaccines, and does not imply any recklessness on their part or on the part of vaccine importers.
Many incidents have been reported in which people suddenly died after being vaccinated, although in most of the cases, no claims have been filed after autopsy.
Relatives of a person who dies after vaccination should file a claim, not just to receive compensation for the loss, but also so that the connection between vaccines and fatalities can be better understood for the benefit of the public.
Courts hearing cases concerning vaccine injury compensation are expected to follow the conclusion of the panel. As many claimants in COVID-19 vaccine injury cases will have limited resources to appeal the reviewers’ rulings, the courts should increase the panel’s burden of proof to better protect the rights of those injured by vaccination.
Hsieh Cheng-en is a lawyer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations