|
|
|
| The Smallpox Vaccine Dilemma |
KNOW . . . The Smallpox Vaccine Dilemma
October 2002 |
Newspapers across the country report that the federal government may change its current recommendations regarding bioterrorism policy, particularly as it relates to the threat of smallpox attacks.
Instead of implementing "ring vaccination" after a smallpox outbreak, they may begin offering advance vaccination prior to an attack for those individuals who want the "protection".
Indeed, the practice of vaccinating before an infectious disease outbreak to prevent infection is the very premise upon which vaccination exists.
While this seemingly great news is greeted with sighs of relief from John Q. Public, the groups who mandate vaccines and insist we vaccinate to save us from all kinds of diseases are in a panic about the public's demand to be "immunized" against this disease.
This is an interesting dilemma.
Vaccination is popular with the masses and profitable for those who administer them.
The entire vaccine industry, which includes everyone from the scientists with patents on vaccines to the school administrators who threaten parents with expulsion if their children don't have them, depends on our willingness to believe we cannot possibly survive without vaccines and that everyone must be forced to have them.
With the stellar reputation that vaccination enjoys, is it any wonder why so many people demand that the government give us this life-saving drug?
To defend their flip-flop position that we should delay mass vaccination until after a smallpox outbreak, the experts argue that the public is ignorant about the risks associated with the vaccine.
Evidently they know more than we do about the damage that is sure to come should pre-emptive vaccination be implemented.
As we shift our collective concerns from worries about inadequate protections to anxieties about adverse reactions from vaccinations, it would behoove us to understand the implications behind this curious change in policy.
The quandary we find ourselves in with this particular vaccine issue brings to light legitimate questions about vaccination in general and vaccine policy in particular.
The truth of the matter is: no vaccine is without risk for serious injury or death.
The collateral damage from widespread smallpox vaccination will not be as easy to conceal from public scrutiny as damage from other vaccines, where only segments of the population are vaccinated or where adverse reactions can be attributed to other causes.
And in today's world, you can be sure that protecting the masses with this dangerous vaccine will not happen until both the government and the medical industry are guaranteed protection from liability for these damages.
The vaccine industry is in a pickle about what to do about this smallpox issue.
If the public is to get what it believes is appropriate medical care (pre-emptive vaccination), the informed consent rights of individuals to accept or decline this risky medical procedure will need to be granted in order to protect the industry from liability.
They might then find that they have to extend these same civil rights with other vaccines.
Across the board informed consent rights for all vaccines would be good vaccine policy.
But don't count on medical ethics or civil rights to be fundamental principles in developing vaccine policy for children.
Informed consent matters with smallpox in large part because of the liability risks -- not necessarily to the recipients of vaccines but to those who provide and administer them.
TOP
|
|
| |
