Ethics of the MMR controversy

Ethics of the MMR controversyIntroductionIn February 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield from capital of the United Kingdoms magnificent acquit Hospital suggested a bear on between the combined MMR vaccination and autism (Guardian, 2008). This striking was widely reported by the media, causing p bents to doubt the safety of shoot their children. As a result there was a huge quarterdidacy by the Health Protection Agency to reassure parents that the vaccine was thus safe, but public opinion is unflustered divided and this lack of vaccination has created a window for infection ( universal checkup Community, 2009) and a steep recrudesce in reported cases of Measles.This essay will review the ethical implications of Dr. Wakefields lop and those involved in the unfolding MMR Controversy.Should the report suck up been published?Did the slew and organisations involved act ethically?The MediaDespite the minor nature of Dr. Wakefields cover Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specif ic colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children the press ran with its findings, using headlines such(prenominal) as Fresh safety businesss raised over MMR labour, New MMR link ready to autism, MMR fears gain financial backing, MMR risk of brain disorders?- from the Daily Mail gaining support from previous ministry aides, columnists and writers (Smith 2004). Even in 2001 the Blairs (the thusly Prime Minister and his married woman Cherie) were asked if Leo, their youngest son, had been given the MMR vaccine, and refused to answer (Goldacre, 2008) lending further credence to the idea that the vaccine was unsafe.It has been stated by the BBC (BBC, 2003) that the public believed that the debate over the MMR vaccination was ruin equally, with G Ps and medical practitioners taking both sides and only 23% aware that the evidence was clearly in support of the combined MMR vaccine. The field of honor was undertaken by Cardiff University between January and September 2002 and surveyed over 1,000 people. With close scrutiny paying(a) to over 2,000 media (papers, radio and TV) reports. The survey concluded that 48% of people impression that journalists, should not (until findings are backed by further investigations and studies) report alarm research however this is still a minority view. Professor Lewis of Cardiff Universitys direct of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies released the following statementThe research too has implications for the debate rough fairness in journalism, suggesting that legal definitions of impartiality in broadcast journalism should not be interpreted in a simplistic fashion, BBC, 2003. yet research, such as that by Chen and DeStefano (1998), quite clearly states that mistaking of Dr. Wakefields research could have been avoided by clarifying the difference between motive and association but the lack of such definition to the media and public can partially be blamed for the ensuing state of affairs.However the M MR indignation does not end with Dr. Wakefields paper further binds such as MMR jab new autism link published by the Sun (Thornton, 2003) or New fear over MMR link with rising Autism by the Telegraph (Adams, 2007) are still fuelling the debate and causing public concern years after the initial accept was published in the Lancet Journal. Doubt is occurring despite a massive coordinated effort by the biomedical community to blackguard such research showing the grip that this story has had on the race for over 10 years.Some articles have been published in the media criticising the sort in which the MMR controversy has been handled although these are far and few between, such and article would be the ONeills The medias MMR shame from the Guardian, 2006.The ResearchersDr. Andrew Wakefield may have been the public face of the MMR scoot but he was not alone in completing the view that started it all, the full list of names sites 13 co-writers, their names and roles are listed in t he original journal articleA J Wakefield was the old scientific investigator. S H Murch and M A Thomson did the colonoscopies. A Anthony, AP Dhillon, and S E Davies carried out the histopathology. J Linnell did the B12 studies. D M Casson and M Malik did the clinical assessment. M Berelowitz did the psychiatric assessment. P Harvey did the neurological assessment. A Valentine did the radiological assessment. J Walker-Smith* was the senior clinical investigator. (Wakefield et al. 1998)Edited to include full Surname original point of reference refers to J W-SIt has to be asked if key personnel involved with controversial aspects of the study acted ethically and trying to answer this question can only be answered by investigating senior team members and their respective roles separately.Dr. Andrew J WakefieldIn March 2004, Dr. E Harris (opposition politician), first raised the issue of unethical demeanour (on Dr. Wakefields part) during the study. As head of the study (Senior Scien tific Investigator (Wakefield et al., 1998)) Dr. Wakefield would have had to have sought permission from the Royal Free Hospitals ethics board forrader commencing his studies. It was alleged by Harris that, after cheering was granted, Wakefield changed the methodology to include lumbar punctures involving sedation (unknown, 2004). This public outing of Dr. Wakefields proposed misconduct and subsequent complaints by Harris resulted in an enquiry by the General medical exam Council, unearthing more damaging claims (General Medical Council, 2010).It was found that children were subject to unnecessary colonoscopies, lumbar punches and barium meals (without approval), that Wakefield was not allowed to incubate children and children were enrolled that did not fit the strict conditional prerequisites of the study (Boseley, 2010).But Dr. Wakefields curt comings were not simply confined to the methodology of the study he was also found have conflicting interests something that was not declared in the paper submitted to the Lancet journal. In 1997 Wakefield had filed a patent (on behalf of Royal Free Hospital) for a vaccine against measles and for treating IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease), he had (in February 1998) applied for ethical approval to trial a new measles vaccine under a new political party called Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltdand been found to have paid children 5, at his sons natal day party, to take unethical blood samples (Boseley, 2010).Further research regarding Wakefields conflicting interests, in particular his involvement with Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltdunearths some controversial evidence, the proposed CEO of the aforementioned company was the father of child 10 (a child involved in the study), with Wakefield and this gentlemen to constituent equity of the company. It was found that Wakefield and Walker-Smith applied for permission and started trials of an alternative therapy Transfer Factor, that was to be produced by Immunospe cifics Biotechnologies Ltd on child 10, also deemedabuse of Wakefields position of organized religion as a medical practitionertext and quotation (DeeTee, 2010).The initiation for Wakefields Transfer Factor treatment can be found in the work of Dr. Herman H Fundenberg (author of Dialysable lymphocyte educe (DlyE) in infantile tone-beginning autism A pilot study., published in discontinued fringe journal Biotherapy(Fundenberg, 1996)) a discredited and indefinitely suspended American desex, who has admitted to treating patience at home with his own bone marrow. Fundenberg not only provide the butt research for Transfer Factor, he is cited as co-inventor on the filed patents (Deer, 2004).Dr. Wakefields involvement in the MMR Controversy did not go unnoticed and in 2001 the Telegraph ran Anti-MMR doctor is forced out, reporting that he was asked to leave his post at the London Free Hospital he cited unpopular research results as reasoning. Since then Dr. Wakefield has worked for t he International Child Development Resource Center in tie-in with a Christian ministry called the Good News Doctor Foundation. He maintains that his results are accurate (BBC, 2010). As a consequence of the General Medical Councils findings Dr Wakefield has been found guilty of misconduct and could be struck off as a result (Rose, 2010).ReferencesGuardian. (2008). Timeline MMR controversy. usable http//www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/02/health-medicalresearch. locomote accessed 15 Feb 2010.General Medicine Community. (2009). Imposing Measles Epidemic Due to MMR Controversy. Available http//stanford.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/imposing-measles-epidemic-due-to-mmr-controversy/603680. function accessed 15 Feb 2010.Smith, J. (2004). The Real MMR Conspiracy. Available http//www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/the-real-mmr-conspiracy-545872.html. support accessed 16 Feb 2010.Goldacre, B. (2008). The Medias MMR Hoax.Available http//www.badscience.net/ 2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/. outlive accessed 16 Feb 2010.BBC. (2003). Parents misled by media over MMR. Available http// give-and-take.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3038607.stm. Last accessed 16 Feb 2010.Chen, R DeStefano, F. (1998). Vaccine adverse events causal or coincidental?. The Lancet. 351, 611-612.Thornton, J. (2003). MMR jab new autism link. Available http//www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ parole/article78818.ece. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010Adams, S. (2007). New fear over MMR link with rising autism. Available http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556883/New-fear-over-MMR-link-with-rising-autism.html. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.Wakefield et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 351 (1), 639-641.unknown. (2004). The genius Injections, and Dr. Wakefields Lack of Ethics. Available http//www.fatherslobby.com/vaccinations/single_injections.html. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.Boseley, S. (20 10). Andrew Wakefield found irresponsible by GMC over vaccine scare. Available http//www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.DeeTee. (2010). The GMC on Wakefield. Available http//layscience.net/node/924. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010Fudenberg HH.(1996). Dialysable lymphocyte extract (DLyE) in infantile onset autism a pilot study. Biotherapy 1996 9 13-17.Deer, B. (2004). Royal Frees autism pill partner, Herman Hugh Fudenberg, wasnt fit to prescribe. Available http//briandeer.com/wakefield/hugh-fudenberg.htm. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.General Medical Council. (2010). Fitness to practice panel hearing 28 January 2010. Available http//www.gmc-uk.org/ atmospheric static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf Last Accessed 17 Feb 2010.Rose, D. (2010). Fall of Andrew Wakefield, dishonest doctor who started MMR scare. Available http//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7006525.ece. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.Fraser, L. (2001). Anti-MMR doctor is forced out. Available http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1364080/Anti-MMR-doctor-is-forced-out.html. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.BBC. (2010). Profile Dr Andrew Wakefield. Available http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm. Last accessed 18 Feb 2010.ONeill, B. (2006). The medias MMR shame. Available http//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/16/whenjournalismkills. Last accessed 18 Feb 2010.