Editor’s Note: BBC World Service reporter Tom Herbert has an excellent account of an unlikely situation – how making the MMR vaccine mandatory in some countries can make society safer. Doctors and pharmacists provided medical expertise at the meeting. “Delegates have considered what options and options for harm control are available when, perhaps 50 years ago, it seemed unthinkable to consider a mandatory vaccination programme,” Dr J. Pattilythe Westerly, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, told delegates. “This morning’s discussions underlined the benefits of vaccines, particularly the importance of those that prevent the severe, potentially fatal complications of measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR). “The discussions also illustrated to us how important the safety and integrity of vaccines is in order to prevent harm.” Photo credit: BBC News Panel discussion The discussion, which was held behind closed doors, was part of the second summit meeting of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, an international treaty which among other things aims to block the sale of counterfeit goods. It was held in Baden Baden, Germany, as part of a weekend of formal meetings. Within that group of 180 delegates were scientists and researchers, manufacturers, clinical specialists, economists, lawyers and politicians. But the head of a group known for making mandatory vaccinations against measles, mumps and rubella was also present. He said he could no longer imagine such a programme being considered, at least as a practical option, when he helped to develop a vaccine against the disease in the 1950s. “This morning we are considering what are the implications of what happens when people who have been immunised may decide to skip vaccinations for a couple of weeks, or may decide to stop their vaccination regimen completely,” Mr Westerly said. This allowed the virus to accumulate, and could lead to problems including measles infections.
Listen to Tom Herbert’s report.
However, Dr Peter Openshaw, chair of the Immunisation Study Group, a non-profit group which supports immunisation programmes, was quick to stress that the discussions were “purely theoretical”. Dr Openshaw said while such a proposal was extremely difficult to implement in its current form, the onus was on governments to enforce vaccination campaigns, rather than the public. Such a change was only conceivable as the population’s understanding of how vaccines work – and in some cases how they can prevent negative side-effects – improved, he said. “It would take quite a lot of political courage for a national government to take on a population that does not want them, which is so much more comfortable with vaccines than in previous generations. “If we can avoid the worst diseases in our population that have caused so much harm for many of us in the past, then we have a chance of closing that big gap and ensuring that the disease prevention system functions well and with sufficient resources.” The drug industry is developing vaccines to help prevent disease for people who cannot normally be vaccinated – the vulnerable elderly or pregnant women. Some scientists believe that, within a few years, this could lead to the creation of an official national strategy to vaccinate the most vulnerable groups, in a similar way to how the NHS ensures everyone has access to healthcare. On Wednesday, Richard Brewer, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, discussed other measures his organisation had helped to promote. “The dramatic rise in anti-vaccination attitudes in the last two decades has highlighted the importance of parents being involved in education about the benefits of vaccination, the adverse effects of refusing vaccination and the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective.” Follow this blog on Twitter: #upixb
E-mail this to a friend Printable version Bookmark with: Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon What are these?