The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7198 p683-685
18 May 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

  Education
  Dispensing
  Childhood vaccination
  Community pharmacy
  Supervision
  The Profession
  The Society
  The Council
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Childhood vaccination

Single vaccines could be for society's benefit

Mrs J. L Westbury, MRPharmS

In his letter (PJ, 27 April, p570) Anthony Cox rightly pointed out that vaccination should be seen as a social responsibility and that for an individual to decide not to vaccinate is not morally justifiable given the risk brought upon the wider society in which they live.

However, the majority of parents of infants with concerns about the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine want to vaccinate their children. They want to protect their offspring from potentially fatal diseases. Yet, because they have a belief that the MMR vaccine has been implicated in causing autism, they are reluctant to do so. That is their dilemma.

A few weeks ago, a young mother came into my pharmacy to seek advice about the MMR vaccine. This mother wanted her child to be protected from the measles virus. However, she was concerned about immunising her infant because when her niece was immunised with MMR vaccine, the family believed that the child's development had stalled. The niece was later diagnosed with "queried autism".

I told the mother that the Department of Health believed that there was no link between autism and the MMR vaccine and informed her of the many studies conducted around the world, which ruled out any association. I also gave the mother a DoH "MMR — the facts" leaflet. After counselling, it was evident that this parent still had strong reservations so I advised her to discuss the matter with her general practitioner. A few days later the GP contacted me to ask if I could obtain a single measles vaccine. He, too, had failed to convince this mother.

In this case, the parent, the GP and the pharmacist all wanted to vaccinate. However, this mother had strong concerns that the combined MMR could affect her child. She opted in the end not to vaccinate. Do we now say to her that her strongly felt individual concerns should be set aside for the good of society?

Could the DoH provide the single measles vaccine on a named patient basis for cases such as these? Before agreeing to administer the single vaccine, the GP could outline the strong evidence in defence of the MMR vaccine and discuss the implications of this option, ie, having to give three injections on separate occasions and the lengthy delay required to complete the schedule.

Changing the DoH policy to allow for the supply of the single vaccine on a limited basis would not be for short-term political gain. It could be for society's benefit so that more children would be immunised and "herd immunity" achieved.

Juanita Westbury
Nantwich, Cheshire

Previous Topic (Dispensing)
Next Topic (Community pharmacy)
Send your letter to The Editor