Ethical Misconduct In Vaccinations For Children

The argument encompassing whether or not parents should vaccinate their children is ongoing. It is a very interesting matter to learn about and I possess some strong feelings about the case. This issue interests me because there are parents who don’t have their children vaccinated, and there are parents who do have them vaccinated. But all these parents share one particular quality: they all would like for their kids to be safe.

Vaccination was first introduced globally for small pox and later on extended to other communicable diseases which are now known as vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination is beneficial both for individuals and community. This bring us to the ethical dilemma - Vaccination of a healthy child with the intention of protecting both the individual child and the community at the same time exposing the child to the theoretical risk of exposure to disease products whether live, attenuated or killed. There was a time when people never questioned the government or their physicians. Now because of more public awareness and accessibility to medical information, they are questioning the safety aspects of vaccines.

In order to investigate more about Wakefield’s study, Brian Deer, a journalist of British Medical Journal, carefully talked to the parents of all children who were participated in the study. Interestingly enough, he revealed the fraud behind Wakefield’s research. The Lancet, the journal that reported Wakefield’s study, retracted the paper soon afterwards (Deer). However, the real trouble still exists. Though it has been proved by many researchers that the MRR doesn’t cause autism, many people perceive the vaccine as a threat. Dr.Nemeroff once said “it is quite difficult to get the cognitive sewage out of the water even after the real sewage is gone” (Greene).

Andrew Wakefield is a former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was discharged from his medical register in the UK, because of his dishonest research paper he released back in 1998, that analysed a possible link between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the presence of autism and bowel disease (Godlee, F., et al, 2011). Wakefield's research generated a substantial scare for the MMR vaccine and MMR vaccination rates began to drop because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination (DeStefano, F., Chen, R.T., 1999). After the paper was published by the Lancet medical newspaper, other reviews were trying to repeat Wakefield's conclusions,

In 1998, the British medical journal called The Lancet published a controversial research paper written by Andrew Wakefield. In the research paper “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, ” Andrew Wakefield et al. attempted to link MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccinations and autism. Nevertheless, the paper seemed to successfully do that. However, this was not known was at the time was Wakefield had tampered with the findings. Furthermore, this was brought to light in 2004 by British journalist Brian Deer. In 2011, thirteen years after The Lancet published the paper, and seven years after Brian Deer exposed the paper. The Lancet finally retracted the article. A common theory

This led to the support of various unproven vaccine-autism theories by parents in both the UK and America. After findings of intestinal disease in children with autism, Wakefield claimed that separating the MMR into three different vaccinations would be safer. Since then, Wakefield’s research has been discredited, he was charged with serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council for violating several ethical practices, and he was investigated for failing to disclose conflict of interest – a pending patent on a rival measles vaccine (Gross, 2009). Although false, many still believe wholeheartedly that vaccines are harmful.

Doctor Andrew Wakefield’s study, published the 28th of February, 1998 in the scientific magazine The Lancet, is constantly cited as being the catalyst for the ongoing debate on whether or not vaccinations have any connections to autism. In the case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study on the connections between autism and the M.M.R. (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, proper scientific experimental procedures were not seen to, such as his not including a control group. That is to say, in an act transgressing scientific integrity, he documented the cases

In fact, The BMJ, or the British Medical Journal, chimed in on Wakefield’s paper. “By the time the paper was finally retracted 12 years later, after forensic dissection at the General Medical Council’s (GMC) longest ever fitness to practise hearing, few people could deny that it was fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically” (Godlee, “Wakefield’s”). Furthermore, Wakefield’s license to practice medicine was stripped away by Britain’s General Medical Council because of misconduct, including the time Wakefield paid his son’s friends £5 each to take blood samples during his son’s birthday party (Burns, “British”). More recent studies also prove that the vaccine-autism link is nonexistent. One study, performed by the Journal of Pediatrics, found that, “ … of MCO members, increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD” (Destefano, “Increasing”). In other words, having a young child exposed to the ingredients of vaccines does not result in the child developing autism (Destefano, “Increasing”).

If Andrew Wakefield hadn’t been stopped, he could’ve potentially put many people’s lives at risk. People should be against Andrew Wakefield because he exposed people to life threatening diseases killed off vaccinations to help with these diseases because he thought those vaccinations would cause autism, was selfish with his studies which led to unethical decisions and did what he felt was needed even though he knew it was bad, and lastly started all controversy for money and attention. Andrew Wakefield is a very corrupt, dishonorable person. It has been proven what a horrible person he really is.

One such factor helping to manifest these large-scale epidemics is a study from 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that there was a direct link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine (Smith 1). As a result, many parents refused to vaccinate their children out of fear, and vaccine-preventable diseases like measles began reappearing more in both America and Britain, the place where Wakefield conducted his study (Cohen 2). Although a later investigation by the British Medical Journal discovered that Wakefield had distorted or altered the medical records of all twelve of the study’s participants and that he had been paid $674,000 USD by lawyers attempting to sue vaccine manufacturers, the atmosphere of apprehension surrounding vaccines is still strong among many individuals, and especially parents (Cohen 1-2). But despite all the controversy and the scientifically unsupported arguments of anti-vaccine sympathizers,

The current issue I have selected to discuss is vaccinations. In particular, I will be addressing the anti-vaccination movement that has gained popularity in recent years and the contributing biases that influenced its emergence. One event stands out at as a major contributing factor to the growth of the anti-vaccination movement, the 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield that was published by the English medical journal, Lancet. This study claimed to show a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Even though it was just one small study, the media picked it up and it became hugely publicized.

If Andrew Wakefield wasn’t stopped, He would’ve potentially put many people’s lives at risk. Andrew Wakefield is a very corrupt, dishonorable person. Even though he had been proven different and tons of evidence was given to support that, he made a lot of people believe that vaccinations would bring children autism. Wakefield made unethical decisions that cost him career. The Hospital Ethics Committee is a group of people who protect the patient’s attractions.

Living in an environment where we are prone to many viruses, it’s very important that one take the proper precautions or considerations to control the risk of getting affected. However, when utilizing the ability of not becoming infected, one may question the fact weather there’s an actual effective form of prevention or not. To clarify the uncertainty, over many years one of the most strategic methods that have been used for the control and preventions of viruses are vaccinations. A vaccination takes advantage of one’s body natural ability to primarily learn how to eliminate almost any disease causing germ or microbe that affects it. Therefore vaccinations are considered one of the most effective ways to prevent severe outcomes initiated by viruses.

Live Science Contributor, Stephanie Pappas tell us that, “Wakefield was getting money from lawyers planning on suing vaccine makers, and he owned a patent on an alternative to the MMR (measles) vaccines,” [2] this statement is clear evidence of fraudulent activity and proves that Wakefield had corrupt reasons for undergoing this study in the first place. The second flaw to Wakefield's paper was the questionable practises of his study, for starters he based his study on twelve children that he “cherry picked,” and “although the paper claimed that cognitive problems developed a few days after the MMR vaccine, a simple investigation of hospital records revealed that wasnt so; and in several cases parents reported problems before the vaccine,” [2]. In summary, the investigation was sloppy and provided no tangible evidence that links autism to the MMR vaccine. Furthermore, it should be noted that the the link between autism and vaccines is purely coincidental, the symptoms of autism typically appear at around the age that vaccines are administered, in fact director of the Vaccine Education Centre at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr Paul Offit confirms this says, “Children get their first dose of the MMR vaccine at 12 to 15 months, the age at which autism symptoms typically

published a controversial study in British journal Lancet where he linked MMR vaccination to autism. (Should I include what his study was based on and results?) Years later, many other studies proved it wrong but mistrust of science and mistrust of government is still there (2011). For example, Phea Paul study stated that there is no evidence that autism is cause by any vaccine and therefore no reason for parents to deny a child protection in today’s vaccines offered (2009). His study shows that if comparing risks mathematically of death or disability as a result of not vaccination a child which are small, to the risks of causing an autism spectrum disorder by immunizing it increases significantly.