Letter

What’s so ‘rational’ about refusal?

Dear healthmatters - At the risk of appearing to be the bull in Anne Rogers’ china shop, I would like to take issue with her article Getting the needle (issue 16). The small number of ‘well educated’ parents whose views she gives so much credence are far from representative, nor are they seriously questioned about their views. It may well be that such (usually middle class) parents have a background of good general education but their education on health issues is sadly lacking when they suggest that their children (not themselves!) should catch potentially lethal diseases ‘naturally’. They would presumably be happy when their child asphyxiates in a whooping cough spasm, or suffers the lingering agony of tetanus because these are ‘natural’ deaths.

Fortunately, such fates are rare. These children are unlikely to die, but not through the efforts of their parents. Because the overwhelming majority of parents do recognise the value of immunisation, the children denied it by their parents are less likely to be exposed to these diseases. So the fiction can be maintained that immunisation is not necessary. The proper moral question, which was not asked, is: ‘How can you justify using the vaccine-induced immunity of other peoples’ children to protect your child, to whom you deny protection yourself?’

But this is not the only serious error. There are also factual errors which serve to perpetuate various myths. For instance, a close family history of epilepsy is not a contraindication to any of the childhood vaccines; nor is there anygood evidence of measles vaccine causing brain damage; there is hardly any which would stand up to scientific scrutiny on the same charge against whooping cough vaccine either. The conventional immunisation programme is not at odds with homeopathy - indeed, it has been unambiguously endorsed by the Council of the Faculty of Homeopathy.

If the piece you published is representative of the research as a whole then the idea that any serious questions are thrown up by it is laughable. If any further ‘research’ is needed, I would suggest that Ms Rogers turns to people who have seen at first hand, and in quantity, the effects both of vaccination and the illnesses in question. If she can find a single paediatrician who would not have their own children immunised then I would be impressed.