26Dec03-Mark S. Zaid-Pentagon Seeks to Continue Experimental Anthrax Shots; Action May Violate Court Order
Mark S. Zaid
Krieger & Zaid, PLLC
Posted 12/26/2003 10:51:00 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of the Defense ("DoD") filed a Motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to limit a December 22, 2003, ruling to only the six unidentified plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SEEKS COURT APPROVAL
TO CONTINUE ILLEGAL VACCINATION PROGRAM
Requests Court To Limit Injunction To Six Plaintiffs
FOR RELEASE: DECEMBER 26, 2003
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mark S. Zaid, Esq.
(202) 454-2809
(202) 498-0011 (cell)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of the Defense ("DoD") filed a Motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to limit a December 22, 2003, ruling to only the six unidentified plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The Court had imposed a Preliminary Injunction after concluding the anthrax vaccine "is an investigational drug and a drug being used for an unapproved purpose." As a result, the ruling issued by the Honorable Emett Sullivan now requires DoD to obtain "informed consent or presidential waiver" or otherwise prohibits the continuation of the anthrax vaccination program.
"The DoD's Motion seeks to turn the Court's ruling into a farcical exercise. The vaccination cannot be illegal for one person but legal for another, unless informed consent is obtained," said Mark S. Zaid, Esq., the Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Krieger & Zaid, PLLC, and co-counsel in the litigation. Zaid added that while he understood the legal arguments asserted by the Justice Department to limit the scope of the decision, the effort violates the spirit of the decision, if not the letter of the law.
Since the issuance of the Court's decision, the DoD has provided conflicting public statements about whether it intends to comply with the ruling. Although some reports indicate the vaccination program has stopped, others imply the Court's Order is being violated. The Food & Drug Administration, whose regulations are at issue in the litigation, has remained silent in the wake of the decision.
In light of the DoD's latest Motion, the plaintiffs' counsels are considering seeking class action certification to ensure the injunction applies to all service members and contractors, as well as pursuing a Motion to hold Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the DoD in contempt of court, added Zaid.
In examining the merits of the case, Judge Sullivan concluded that the "DoD's administration of the inoculation without consent of those vaccinated amounts to arbitrary action." He further opined that "the right to bodily integrity and the importance of complying with legal requirements, even in the face of requirements that may potentially be inconvenient or burdensome, are among the highest public policy concerns one could articulate."
Nearly 500 active-duty service-members have refused the vaccine, and close to 200 have been court-martialed. Additionally, approximately 500-1000 pilots and flight crew members have quit, resigned or transferred from the Air National Guard or Reserves rather than take the vaccine. The vaccine is voluntary in the Australian, British and Canadian militaries, as well as for U.S. Department of State employees even though they serve in the same geographical region as that of U.S. military service members.
##
Copies of the lawsuit are available upon request or at dcd.uscourts.gov
veteransforcommonsense.org |
