Gulf war syndrome case collapses
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A compensation claim by more than 2000 British veterans over Gulf war syndrome has collapsed, because there is not enough scientific evidence to prove their case in court.
The Legal Services Commission, which faces a bill of around ￡4m ($7.4m; �5.8m) for the eight year legal battle, is expected to withdraw legal aid this month. Taking the case to trial in the High Court would have cost taxpayers another ￡4m.
Although no final decision on funding has been taken, the veterans?lawyers—the current chairman of the bar, Stephen Irwin QC, and solicitor Patrick Allen, senior partner of the London firm Hodge, Jones & Allen—accept that the withdrawal of aid is inevitable. The case has met the same fate as the litigation over the triple vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, blamed by parents for causing their children抯 autism, and for the same reason: lack of scientific evidence.
British veterans of the Gulf war, who have been trying to sue the Ministry of Defence, have a range of health problems, including fatigue, headaches, cognitive disorders such as short term memory loss and loss of concentration, joint and muscle pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol misuse, sleep disturbance, skin rashes, and shortness of breath.
Possible causes that have been suggested include the effect of multiple vaccines on the immune system; tablets to guard against nerve agents; exposure to organophosphate insecticides; exposure to chemical or biological weapons; the effects of depleted uranium from munitions; and pollution from oil well fires.
But Hodge, Jones & Allen says in a briefing paper: "A worldwide consensus has emerged among scientific experts that the symptoms and health problems reported by veterans are a significant health effect that is similar to symptoms reported by veterans of earlier conflicts; and similar to symptoms commonly reported by people not involved in the Gulf War and not in the armed forces. According to the worldwide scientific consensus, veterans?symptoms and health problems do not represent a Gulf War syndrome and do not have an identifiable cause."
Clinical tests carried out on a sample of 20 veterans found "no consistent pattern of clinically significant abnormalities that might have been attributed to a toxic effect caused by Gulf War exposures."
The case also fell at the second hurdle—the need to prove that the Ministry of Defence was negligent. "Battlefield immunity" is a complete defence against all allegations of negligence or breach of duty in battlefield conditions where the armed forces are engaged with the enemy. The immunity extends to preparations for battle, which could possibly cover vaccinations before the troops left Britain.
Many of the veterans have won war pensions for the health effects of their service in the Gulf, but for pension claims the burden is on the ministry to prove that the problems are not due to service, while in the High Court the onus would be on the veterans to prove a causal link. Nor do war pensions require proof of negligence.(BMJ Clare Dyer legal corr)
The Legal Services Commission, which faces a bill of around ￡4m ($7.4m; �5.8m) for the eight year legal battle, is expected to withdraw legal aid this month. Taking the case to trial in the High Court would have cost taxpayers another ￡4m.
Although no final decision on funding has been taken, the veterans?lawyers—the current chairman of the bar, Stephen Irwin QC, and solicitor Patrick Allen, senior partner of the London firm Hodge, Jones & Allen—accept that the withdrawal of aid is inevitable. The case has met the same fate as the litigation over the triple vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, blamed by parents for causing their children抯 autism, and for the same reason: lack of scientific evidence.
British veterans of the Gulf war, who have been trying to sue the Ministry of Defence, have a range of health problems, including fatigue, headaches, cognitive disorders such as short term memory loss and loss of concentration, joint and muscle pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol misuse, sleep disturbance, skin rashes, and shortness of breath.
Possible causes that have been suggested include the effect of multiple vaccines on the immune system; tablets to guard against nerve agents; exposure to organophosphate insecticides; exposure to chemical or biological weapons; the effects of depleted uranium from munitions; and pollution from oil well fires.
But Hodge, Jones & Allen says in a briefing paper: "A worldwide consensus has emerged among scientific experts that the symptoms and health problems reported by veterans are a significant health effect that is similar to symptoms reported by veterans of earlier conflicts; and similar to symptoms commonly reported by people not involved in the Gulf War and not in the armed forces. According to the worldwide scientific consensus, veterans?symptoms and health problems do not represent a Gulf War syndrome and do not have an identifiable cause."
Clinical tests carried out on a sample of 20 veterans found "no consistent pattern of clinically significant abnormalities that might have been attributed to a toxic effect caused by Gulf War exposures."
The case also fell at the second hurdle—the need to prove that the Ministry of Defence was negligent. "Battlefield immunity" is a complete defence against all allegations of negligence or breach of duty in battlefield conditions where the armed forces are engaged with the enemy. The immunity extends to preparations for battle, which could possibly cover vaccinations before the troops left Britain.
Many of the veterans have won war pensions for the health effects of their service in the Gulf, but for pension claims the burden is on the ministry to prove that the problems are not due to service, while in the High Court the onus would be on the veterans to prove a causal link. Nor do war pensions require proof of negligence.(BMJ Clare Dyer legal corr)