Re: New guidance from the GMC: what constitutes meaningful dialogue? Vaccines are a matter of individual autonomy too
Dear Editor
I welcome the new guidelines [1,2]. I have viewed with concern the idea floated in The Times by Heidi Larson of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that the Queen could be called on to boost trust in coronavirus vaccine [3]. Would such a promotional exercise really be an appropriate place to start in accepting any of the new products, either for her or for us?
Surely it is imperative that any individual choices are made on the basis of fully informed consent and not collective or political pressure, and this tolerance of individual autonomy is recognised for all vaccines. The recent Cumberlege review has recognised in principle where such pressures could lead [4] and it is hard to see why vaccines should be exempt. Nor should anyone should be labelled an “anti-vaxxer”, least of all by the Prime Minister, because they do not jump into line [5].
[1] Daniel Sokol, ‘ New guidance from the GMC: what constitutes meaningful dialogue?, BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3933 (Published 12 October 2020)
Competing interests:
AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor
Rapid Response:
Re: New guidance from the GMC: what constitutes meaningful dialogue? Vaccines are a matter of individual autonomy too
Dear Editor
I welcome the new guidelines [1,2]. I have viewed with concern the idea floated in The Times by Heidi Larson of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that the Queen could be called on to boost trust in coronavirus vaccine [3]. Would such a promotional exercise really be an appropriate place to start in accepting any of the new products, either for her or for us?
Surely it is imperative that any individual choices are made on the basis of fully informed consent and not collective or political pressure, and this tolerance of individual autonomy is recognised for all vaccines. The recent Cumberlege review has recognised in principle where such pressures could lead [4] and it is hard to see why vaccines should be exempt. Nor should anyone should be labelled an “anti-vaxxer”, least of all by the Prime Minister, because they do not jump into line [5].
[1] Daniel Sokol, ‘ New guidance from the GMC: what constitutes meaningful dialogue?, BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3933 (Published 12 October 2020)
[2] ‘Decision making and consent’, GMC 30 September 2020, https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/dec...
[3] Rhys Blakely, ‘ Queen could be called on to boost trust in coronavirus vaccine’, The Times 17 October 2020,
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/queen-could-be-called-on-to-boost-tru...
[4] Helen Haskell, ‘ Cumberlege review exposes stubborn and dangerous flaws in healthcare’, BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3099 (Published 06 August 2020)
[5] John Stone, ‘Regarding the Use of the Term “Anti-Vaxxer”’, 27 August 2020, https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3099/rr-5
Competing interests: AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor