Thursday, 4 June 2009

They Understand The Workings Of The Human Body…

…but nothing whatsoever about people. Yes, it’s the British Meddling Association again:
Sir Sandy said: "Our attempts to persuade people have failed.

"The suggestion is that we ought to consider making a link which in effect would make it compulsory for children to be immunised if they are to receive the benefit of a free education from the state."
Well, thanks for illustrating so perfectly the mindset of the Righteous, Sir Sandy.

‘Those dumb cattle don’t trust or respect us enough to take our advice like they should do, so we’ll force it on them. That’ll get us the trust and respect we crave!’
Uptake of the MMR vaccine fell sharply after controversial research wrongly linked it to a raised risk of autism.

One in four children under five has not had both MMR injections, which are needed to give full protection against measles, mumps and rubella.

As a result there have been measles outbreaks across the country, and experts at the Health Protection Agency now fear a measles epidemic is likely.
So introduce single vaccinations – it’s what the people want, and it would resolve a good deal of your problem.

Yes, it’d be more expensive and result in a longer period of vulnerability while the courses were completed, but helllloooo!!

At the moment, that period of vulnerability is infinity, and a measles epidemic will cost a fortune too. Not least on the useless information booklets you’ll probably rush to the printers having first crossed out the words ‘swine flu’ on the ones you already have…
Linking vaccinations to school admission is controversial but common in other countries.
And…?

Hmm, let me try that one on for size:

‘Bullfighting is controversial but common in other countries.’

‘Child labour is controversial but common in other countries.’


Sound like a good reason to introduce either to the UK?

Thought not…
The BBC has learned, however, through a freedom of information request that the strategic health authority in London asked the government if it could introduce compulsory vaccinations.

Specifically the SHA asked about the "feasibility of requiring an immunisation certificate for measles before children go to school."
Luckily, the DoH officials saw this train wreck coming and quickly changed the points to shunt the SHA safely into the buffers:
In documents seen by the BBC, the Department of Health acknowledges that immunisation rates in London are consistently lower than the rest of the country.

But officials said: "Our strategy is to maintain a voluntary immunisation system and invest efforts in educating parents about the benefits of vaccination and dispelling 'myths' about vaccine safety."
So, what do the parents themselves say?

Surely anyone who has had experience of measles in their child will be a convert to ‘jab ‘em all by force!’ ideas?
Rachel Whittle knows the consequences of not vaccinating her children.

Her daughter Lola May was in hospital for five weeks and has been left partially deaf after getting measles.

"In hindsight I wish that I'd had my children vaccinated," she said.

"The guilt is something that I now have to live with.

"But I didn't choose to vaccinate, I urge parents to vaccinate and make that decision.

"But I don't however agree with it being compulsory."
So if even those affected realise that there are wider civil liberties issues here, why don’t the likes of Sir Sandy?

Or maybe they do realise, but just don’t care. The ‘end justifies the means’, I suppose…
At a mother and toddler group in Manchester parents were equally unsure about making vaccinations compulsory.

"I don't think you'd have to go as far as legal intervention," said one mother.

"All that would do is make people angry and saying don't impose such sanctions really."

"I don't think it should be compulsory," said another.

"I've had my daughter done but I think it's down to the parent.

"If the parents don't want their children to have the injection I don't think they should have to."
And even the other experts think Sir Sandy is barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking:
Professor Adam Finn, a vaccine expert in Bristol, said the media was largely to blame for scaremongering over the MMR jab.

But, although he sympathises with Sir Sandy's concerns about the possibility of a measles epidemic, Professor Finn believes compulsory vaccination would be counter-productive.

"There is a real risk we would end up with less MMR immunisation not more," he said.

"I think this would be handing a gift to the anti-vaccine lobby, because they would say 'look they can't persuade you it is right, so they are going to have to force you'."
Quite.

So why waste the BMA’s time debating it?

14 comments:

  1. The state should stop interfering with our children. The state should only intervene when necessary.

    Those that choose to have their children vaccinated, don't have to worry about their kids getting measles. Those that don't, take responsibility for that decision and may pay for it for the rest of their lives if the outcome is a disabled child.

    However, there are thousands of parents who believe that the MMR caused far worse damage to their now autistic children.

    If the programme becomes compulsory, will the government take responsibility for those that have an adverse reaction? I doubt it, since they deny the vaccination is at fault.

    The only answer is to offer parents the vaccinations separately. After all, you are injecting 3 horrible diseases into a small baby all at once.

    Logic tells you that it's not exactly a sensible thing to do!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Sue: "The only answer is to offer parents the vaccinations separately. After all, you are injecting 3 horrible diseases into a small baby all at once.

    Logic tells you that it's not exactly a sensible thing to do!


    My children haven't had the MMR and soon they will be calling that child abuse if they make vaccinations compulsory.

    My son has exhibited high allergic reactions and combined jabs of any kind have been warned against by a health professional, yet of course my GP disagrees and is short-tempered with me. I've sourced single jabs but there is no regulation so they could be injecting anything into him. I've done nothing as yet. The government should at least offer single jabs for those who wish to pay, making the issue not one of cost but safety for the child. At the moment they are just bullying the public. It's not the fault of people in such numbers for having concerns it's the governments fault for not recognising public feeling and resonding to it.

    PS: Julia, how do you put the Dale banner in the sidebar? Can you tell me, please??

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Julia, how do you put the Dale banner in the sidebar? Can you tell me, please??"

    I saved the .gif I needed to my hard drive from Dale's site, then went to the 'Edit' function on the dashboard and used the 'Add a Gadget' option.

    You can choose to add a picture with an active link (the one of Iain's site), it's about the fourth or fifth option down, if memory recalls.

    At least, that's how I did it! There may be better options...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sue said "the state should only intervene when necessary". I completely agree. She also said "Those that choose to have their children vaccinated, don't have to worry about their kids getting measles. Those that don't, take responsibility for that decision and may pay for it for the rest of their lives if the outcome is a disabled child." Which is true. However she doesn't take into account those children who cannot be vaccinated e.g. if they are immunocompromised in some way, or vulnerable adults e.g. HIV+, who must rely on herd immunity. Who will take responsibility for death or disablement in this population?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "if they are to receive the benefit of a free education from the state"

    What f*cking benefit? He's taking the piss, right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Following on from Rob's comment, state education is "free" in the same way the NHS is "free": it's free at the point of delivery but someone (guess who?) pays through the nose. The payers (ie the taxpayers) actually receive a crap education system and, as it happens, a less than ideal health system. Not coincidentally, both systems are run for the benefit of the bureaucracy and the producer groups which run them and work in them. The "consumers" - parents and patients - don't get a look-in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Always a difficult question of liberty versus responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The only answer is to offer parents the vaccinations separately."

    Yes. The fact they don't, when it's obvious there is a disconnect that can't be mended, is down to not wanting to be seen to 'give in'.

    Which is unconscionable when you look at the possible effects...

    "It's not the fault of people in such numbers for having concerns it's the governments fault for not recognising public feeling and resonding to it."

    Absolutely bang on!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "However she doesn't take into account those children who cannot be vaccinated e.g. if they are immunocompromised in some way, or vulnerable adults e.g. HIV+, who must rely on herd immunity. Who will take responsibility for death or disablement in this population?"

    It's a tricky one, but surely they'd be best off focussing their efforts on ensuring that those who want a single vaccine can get it, rather than an 'all or nothing!' approach?

    It's quite clear that attempting to strongarm people is going to backfire big time...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually offering single vaccines is a terrible idea, and this is actual documented fact; in the 1970s a triple vaccine was found to be faulty and replaced with three single vaccines.

    What happened is that even young kids very quickly learned to associate going to the doc with painful injections, and threw tantrums after the first few. Many mothers threw in the towel at that point, and a lot of kids didn't get the full set of vaccinations.

    This led to increased mortality, mortality that was entirely preventable. Since MMR doesn't cause autism and Dr Wakefield is a dangerous quack, the whole debate is really pretty silly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Actually offering single vaccines is a terrible idea, and this is actual documented fact.."

    That was then. This is now. The parents aren't saying they don't want to vaccinate, they are saying they don't want MMR.

    It may not be such a terrible idea given the alternative.

    "Since MMR doesn't cause autism and Dr Wakefield is a dangerous quack, the whole debate is really pretty silly."

    And that's the attitude that will ensure nothing changes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for the blog tips, Julia.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You're welcome! Hope it helped...

    ReplyDelete