Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Power gone mad.
- Aviva Sheb'a (21 June 2003)
-
Those who benefit by the risks others take.
- axel Ellrodt (22 June 2003)
-
Re: Power gone mad.
- L S Lewis (23 June 2003)
-
On mandatory vaccination
- Philippe Beutels (25 June 2003)
-
Judges Ordering MMR on the Basis of Health Policy Makers is a Bad Decision
- Kathleen M. Dickson (19 July 2003)
-
How Can this Be in the best intrest of the girls
- Rosella De Rose (22 August 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Aviva Sheb'a, Mother, Independent Movement Educator, Writer Adelaide, Australia, 5066
Send response to journal:
|
I find this outrageous. How can a legal practitioner overrule in a case like this? To me, it's an erosion of democratic rights, regardless of whether one believes the immunisation to be a good thing or not. Supposing it eventually comes out that MMR does indeed cause any kind of damage? Power over public indeed gone mad. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
axel Ellrodt, Emergency Department , American Hospital of Paris Neuilly sur Seine France
Send response to journal:
|
Do anti-vaccine persons have an antisocial (antidemocratic ?) conduct ? It is true that like most human interventions, vaccination bears risks. The benefit/risk balance is usually if not ever such that governmental agencies recommend certain vaccinations for certain populations. The risk of bribery of those agencies by vaccine manufacturers is a social risk that should be included in the benefit/risk balance. Democracies have to fight that kind of risk and accept it. Those who refuse vaccine for themselves and their children: - are passively protected by the high prevalence of vaccinated persons in the society. - but they do not share the risk taken by the vaccinated. This is unfair, to say the least. Competing interests: vaccine protected against many pests, father of vaccine protected progeny |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L S Lewis, GP Newport Surgery
Send response to journal:
|
I fear Aviva has not understood the case in question.. The Judge did not overrule the mother's wishes as an exercise of 'mad power' - Rather, he was asked to adjudicate between the two parents, who disagreed about MMR vaccination of their child - mother said no, father said yes. He decided that both parents had equal parental rights, and that therefore the best current evidence should decide the matter - As to the question 'what happens in the future if new evidence comes to light.. ' Well - that unknown evidence might go either way - perhaps the mother's view might turn out to have harmed the child more so ?? In my own practice, I go along with parent's vaccination wishes when they both agree to withhold MMR and they are making a competent informed judgement. Even though I believe MMR is safe and effective, I believe parents have the right to decide ( and in rare, serious, and exceptional cases society should overrule dangerously bad parental decisions )... But this case was simply about WHICH parent gets to decide, when they disagree - the Judge's very reasonable answer was 'the one deciding that action most likely to be in the child's best interest' Competing interests: I get paid to look after children and their parents - AND I get paid for MMR vaccinations... sometimes any of theabove are competing for my interest ! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Philippe Beutels, Senior Research Fellow National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), University of Sydney, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Some countries legislate compulsory vaccination. For instance, refusing polio vaccine is illegal in Belgium, and both parents can be temporarily removed from their guardianship. Though this is different from the UK court ruling over a parental disagreement [1], I take it as an opportunity to point out the following. Two contradictory arguments prevail in discussions on mandatory vaccination. (a) Refusing vaccination is selfish, because free riders reap the benefits provided by herd immunity, without taking the risks of side effects. (b) Freedom of choice and beliefs is sacred in a libertarian society. While both arguments have value, they can also be misleading. First, if vaccine refusers live in clusters, they may be gravely affected by outbreaks.[2] Furthermore, herd immunity shifts the age at infection of residual cases (mostly in the unvaccinated) upwards. As disease severity sometimes increases with age at infection (e.g., rubella, varicella), parents who refuse vaccination may expose their offspring to greater risks later in life. So it does not always make sense to lable refusers as profiteers. Second, John Stuart Mill was influential in promoting the individual right to self-determination. Yet he acknowledged that coercion is justifiable if it aims to prevent harm to others.[3] Clearly, vaccination can be regarded as a public duty of those able to receive it, in order to protect those who cannot receive it (e.g., due to age, allergies or pregnancy). The principle of restricting individual freedom to safeguard population health is also included in the Declaration of Human Rights, accepted by the Council of Europe.[4] Of course, coercion is redundant for some countries or vaccines when vaccination is nearly-universally, voluntarily accepted. Other countries have resolved to implicit (inequitable) coercion, for instance, by making vaccination a school entry requirement. Moreover, if the herd immunity threshold is low and the vaccine is not perfectly safe, coercion would only be equitable (all beneficiaries who can, participate in the risks), but not efficient (it takes unnecessary costs and risks to acquire the same overall benefits). Vaccine demand is regulated by risk perceptions. Declining vaccine demand, due to complacency or perceived risks of vaccination, causes (the perception of) disease risk to increase again until demand is triggered to reach pre-decline levels. By relying on such a self-regulatory mechanism we accept its inherent excess illness and deaths (for instance demonstrated for pertussis [5]). An important question is whether we wish to continue to do so. [1] Dyer C. Judge overrules mothers' objections to MMR vaccine. BMJ 2003;326:1351. [2] van den Hof S, Conyn-van Spaendonck MA, van Steenbergen JE. Measles epidemic in the Netherlands, 1999-2000. J Infect Dis 2002;186(10):1483-6. [3] Vermeersch E. Individual rights versus societal duties. Vaccine 1999;17 Suppl 3:S14-17. [4] Council of Europe. Declaration of Human Rights (Exceptions to articles 5.1 and 8.2). Strasbourg, 3-6 January, 1966. [5] Gangarosa EJ, Galazka AM, Wolfe CR, Phillips LM, Gangarosa RE, Miller E, Chen RT. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351(9099):356-61. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kathleen M. Dickson, Retired Pfizer, Inc, retired (06340)
Send response to journal:
|
Unfortunately, the Judge was ill-advised, here. These MMR vaccines fail, and that is the real reason we have so many Autism cases. Had the Judge truly invited independent opinion, that is, expertise, he would have discovered the Science of the Matter. 1) These vaccines fail new strains of Rubella, which results
in Autism, and is the reason for this immunization
in the first place. The Judge is not a Scientist, and Health Policy Makers are just that- not Scientists either. If they were Scientists, they would not be Health Policy Makers. The definition of a Scientist, you see, is He Who Who Caves to the Facts. Let the People Go. Their bodies are their own. Such decisions by the Court amount to enslavement. THIS is a case where Government has crossed the line. A Reversal is in order. If the Judge can't see that this is so, the Judge puts himself above common sense, nevermind, law. Kathleen M. Dickson
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rosella De Rose, Mother Housewife
Send response to journal:
|
No vaccine is guaranteed to give life time immunity. In the case of German Measles where the great danger is when you are pregnant is it not better to get the disease naturally When you are a child to guarantee life time immunity. Mumps also a fairly uncomplicated disease when you are a child the only illness that poses some kind of threat is the Measles so surely if the best interest of the children was taken then just Measles should have been ordered. With the all the worry of there possibly being a problem with MMR, you know the old saying where there is smoke there is fire, I really don't think that this case was really considered with the fairness of both parties and I feel that either the Judge had a biased opinion or was not adequately equipped with all the information to have fairly dealt with this case. Competing interests: None declared |
|||