http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/natasha_walter/story.jsp?story=118561
Internal links
Why has
MMR proved such an acute political problem for Tony Blair?
GPs 'will
not treat' children without the jab
Confirmed
measles cases in North-east and London increase fears of epidemic
Ignore
media scaremongers, PM tells parents
The front page of The Sun yesterday
announced a leak from Downing Street. "Blair is wobbling: Measles fear
sparks review." If true, this would be rather sensible on Mr Blair's part.
As take-up of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in parts of London is said
to be dropping to as low as 75 per cent; as outbreaks of measles are now being
reported as far apart as Clapham and Gateshead – wouldn't it be only rational
for members of the Government to sit down and ask themselves whether their
vaccination policy is working?
But note The Sun's wording. "Blair is
wobbling." Oh, yes. And wobbling is a sign of weakness. And the Government
must never, ever be weak. So as soon as The Sun rose with its story,
Downing Street attempted to eclipse it with a denial. The leak was
"completely untrue". Tony Blair was most certainly not going to look
at the possibility of providing a choice between the all-in-one vaccine and
three single jabs. No, not even though 85 per cent of parents, in a recent
poll, said they thought the choice should be offered.
Immediately the opposition, sensing weakness, moved
in to attack. "The Government's immunisation policy is a disaster,"
the shadow Health Secretary said. And the interviews on Radio 4's Today
programme yesterday morning continued the blistering confrontation, with more
talk of wobbles and U-turns. The MMR vaccine had become a political football to
be tossed from Liam Fox to Yvette Cooper, with John Humphrys as a grumpy
referee.
But is this really the best way to conduct a debate
about children's health? A couple of months ago, when I first wrote about the
fears that were building up about the vaccine, I noted that the doctors who are
exploring possible links between the vaccine and autism admit that they haven't
proved anything yet. From Andrew Wakefield, the gastroenterologist who started
the whole kerfuffle, to John O'Leary, the pathologist whose new research on the
presence of the measles virus in the guts of autistic children was published
yesterday, to Walter Spitzer, the acclaimed epidemiologist – all are still
asking questions, not making statements. Even Andrew Wakefield says clearly:
"We have not proved a link." But they are arguing that more studies
should be carried out.
Given the reasonable tone emanating from such
doctors, the political rhetoric sounds ever more blinkered. Yesterday morning
the Public Health Minister, Yvette Cooper, repeated over and over again that
there is no proof that the MMR vaccine is at all unsafe. The Government has
been saying the same thing for months. But surely at some point they must
realise that this does not answer the dissidents' argument that more research
still needs to be done.
And while Conservative and Labour politicians
happily debate the MMR issue back and forth on television and radio, we have to
ask: who are really bearing the brunt of this particular political spat?
My daughter is now nearly 14 months old. Her
birthday was marked, as all first birthdays now are, by the first appearance of
that little blue slip asking us to make an appointment for the MMR vaccine. A
reminder followed a month later. Any day now, I or my partner must trudge off
to the doctor to have the needle pushed into her arm. Perhaps I would have
followed the MMR debate anyway, but this timing means that I am constantly
drawn, with horrified sympathy, to those tales of the parents whose perfect
children, whose talking, laughing, kissing, enchanting children, retreated into
a black pit around this age. And who now blame the MMR vaccine.
I know that my perfect, laughing, enchanting
daughter is highly unlikely to be damaged by any vaccination. I know that there
is no medical evidence to say the MMR jab is any danger to her health. But as
long as fears continue to be voiced, I would like to see this debate continued
on rational rather than rhetorical grounds.
Concerns are being raised by thousands of parents
who have watched and suffered over the pattern of their children's development
more closely than any doctor could, and I would like to hear politicians
engaging with those concerns rather than dismissing them out of hand. Concerns
are also being raised by more than one respected scientific researcher, and I
would like to know that funds are being made available to those researchers to
lay those concerns to rest.
When we hear that Walter Spitzer, a doctor who has
been described as the "dean" of epidemiology, has said, "There
has not been a single properly designed, properly executed, properly analysed
epidemiological study published since this controversy became visible," we
have to ask – why not? When we hear that John O'Leary, a molecular pathologist
with "an international reputation", said only yesterday that his new
study "raises many questions about whether measles virus has a role in
bowel inflammation and developmental disorder", we have to wonder when we
will get answers to those questions.
But finding answers doesn't seem to be the priority
of this government. Instead of engaging with the dissent, their spokespeople
blame "media hysteria" for stoking a "panic", and they shut
off perfectly rational questions from interviewers because they might sow
"doubt" and "fear". The best response they have come up
with so far is a £3m advertising campaign that compares parents who won't
immunise their children with parents who would leave their baby in front of a
rampaging tiger! Stop patronising us, Mr Blair.
The Prime Minister should give an interview where
he admits that the Government is not always omniscient. To be honest, I don't
really care what he has decided to do with Leo – do you really think he has
inside knowledge that we don't have? No, what I care about is whether he is
going to take steps to increase the knowledge available to every parent. He
should announce increased funding for epidemiological and biological studies to
finally lay to rest the question of whether there is any correlation between
rises in autism and MMR take-up, or any connection between the measles virus
found in the gut of affected children and the vaccine.
The Government could also offer single vaccines to
those who want it, in the expectation that the public will be grown up enough
not to assume that such a move means that MMR is necessarily dangerous, but
simply that they now have been entrusted with a choice that they are able to
make for themselves. As it is, middle-class parents are buying that choice in
private clinics, while parents on low incomes who might like to do the same are
forced to sweat out their fears.
Unfortunately, this government believes that the
best way to meet people's fears is not by engaging with them, but by trying to
shut down the debate. But as long as people feel patronised, they will respond
with doubt. The only way out of the situation is for Mr Blair to respect the
public and to engage on an equal level with all parents. A review of policy
would not be a sign of weakness or a U-turn – it would be a sign of progress
and confidence.
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.