In the year 2000, Hannah Poling of Athens, Georgia, received five routine immunizations to protect her against nine infectious diseases. After receiving the vaccine, Hannah became sick two days later and was diagnosed in 2001 as autistic. Hannah’s parents sued the government, claiming that the vaccines somehow caused the autism, and they reached a settlement.
This case, and in particular the settlement of the government, raises concerns about the relationship between childhood vaccines and autism. John Gilmore, the executive director of Autism United, said, “This decision gives people significant reason to be cautious about vaccinating their children.” Gilmore’s son faced the same predicament as Hannah, and he has sued the government as well.
Dr. Jon Poling, neurology resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital at the time and Hannah’s father, explained that Hannah was later found to have a mitochondrial disease. Such a disease can lie dormant until stimulated by a vaccination, which is what the government believed happened. Hannah’s mother acknowledged that this is a possibility, but there is no evidence that Hannah had this disease before the vaccines. She also explained that there is a second explanation for Hannah’s autism: the vaccines.
In either case, the vaccine did somehow either provoke or create Hannah’s autism. Whether directly or indirectly (by means of the mitochondrial disease), the government-required vaccines adversely affected Hannah’s development. Although there may be no direct proof that the vaccines causes autism, this does give one reason to question the safety and effects of vaccines, especially because such vaccines are given to every child in the country, and to many in the world. If there is a problem with a vaccine, particularly with a new vaccine where the long-term effects are unknown, an entire country of children could face debilitating side-effects. This is one of many concerns with the HPV vaccine and one reason why many parents are hesitant to allow their children to receive a relatively new vaccine. Even though cases such as Hannah’s are rare, they do exist, and do justify some concern over mandatory vaccinations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In your argument, you hint at the issue of whether the government has the right to mandate its citizens (specifically children) to acquire vaccinations. Many would argue that the government has no right to interfere with the actions of individuals and that individuals have the right to assess the risks associated with obtaining or abstaining from vaccination. I think the deeper issue, however, is whether the government has an obligation to the individual or to the society.
In my opinion, the government’s decision to mandate vaccinations benefits the society as a whole and also protects the individual. The benefits to society are obvious: when people acquire vaccinations, they are less likely to become infected by certain diseases and thus the transmission of the disease declines. On an individual scale, however, the distinction is not as clear. It is true that the government appears to restrict some individual rights by mandating vaccinations. At the same time, the government’s mandate helps ensure the protection of the individual and promotes that individuals health. As you noted, the chances of a child acquiring autism due to vaccinations is minimal. Compare this small value to what would happen if an individual were not vaccinated against Hepatitis or Tetanus or Meningitis; the risk associated with these latter diseases greatly outweighs the risk associated with autism. By mandating the use of vaccinations, the government enforces its belief about these risks.
Unfortunately, although the government appears to protect the individual and his health, the individual still has the right to decide his courses of action. It may be preferable for the government to strongly encourage certain vaccinations rather than mandate them, thereby providing people with the government’s stance on the matter while leaving the responsibility in the hands of the individual.
You note that this issue with vaccinations is especially disconcerting due to the new HPV vaccine. I believe that the government should not mandate the use of HPV until it has been tested for years in the population. I do agree, however, that the risk of a child obtaining autism due to vaccinations provides a strong reason for why people would be averse to trying new vaccinations.
Post a Comment