Friday, October 16, 2009

More Swine Flu Debate: Parents Refusing to Vaccinate their Children

Swine Flu Shots Revive a Debate About Vaccines
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: October 15, 2009

People who do not believe in vaccinating children have never had much sway over Leslie Wygant Arndt. She has studied the vaccine debate, she said, and came out in favor of having her 10-month-old daughter inoculated against childhood diseases. But there is something different about the vaccine for the H1N1 flu, she said.

Leslie Wygant Arndt of Portland, Ore., has mixed feelings about having her daughter, Beatrice, get the H1N1 vaccine. “I have looked at the people who are against it, and I find myself taking their side,” said Ms. Wygant Arndt, who lives in Portland, Ore. “But then again I go back and forth on this every day. It’s an emotional topic.”

Anti-vaccinators, as they are often referred to by scientists and doctors, have toiled for years on the margins of medicine. But an assemblage of factors around the swine flu vaccine — including confusion over how it was made, widespread speculation about whether it might be more dangerous than the virus itself, and complaints among some health care workers in New York about a requirement that they be vaccinated — is giving the anti-vaccine movement a fresh airing, according to health experts.

“Nationally right now there is a tremendous amount of attention on this vaccine,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, the New York City health commissioner. That focus has given vaccine opponents “an opportunity to speak out publicly and get their message amplified that they didn’t have at other times,” he said.

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines, said the swine flu has “breathed new life” into the cause. “People who have never asked questions before about vaccines are looking at this one,” Ms. Fisher said.

The increased interest is frustrating to health officials, who are struggling to persuade an already wary public to line up for shots and prevent the spread of the pandemic. According to a CBS News poll conducted last week, only 46 percent said they were likely to get the vaccine. The nationwide poll, which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, found that while 6 in 10 parents were likely to have their children vaccinated, less than half said they were “very likely to.”

“I wonder if the people disseminating this false information about this vaccine realize that what they are doing could result in some people losing their lives,” said Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, the director of the Department of Public Health for Los Angeles County. The comments of vaccine dissenters, which he said “politically come from the left and the right,” were frequently “not just counterproductive,” he said, “but downright disgraceful.”

Web sites, Twitter feeds, talk radio and even elevator chatter are awash with skeptics criticizing the vaccine, largely with no factual or scientific basis. The most common complaint is that the vaccine has been newly formed and quickly distributed without the benefit of clinical trials; in fact, the swine flu vaccine was made using the same techniques as seasonal flu shots over the last two decades, and a small number of clinical trials were conducted this year to determine the adequate dose.

There are also claims that the vaccine contains adjuvants — sometimes added to make vaccines more effective — although they have not been used in this one. In addition, there is fear that the vaccine could lead to Guillain-Barré syndrome, as was suspected the last time a swine flu vaccine was distributed, in 1976; flu vaccines are now much purer than they were, minimizing the risk, and Guillain-Barré is far rarer.

In measuring the risk of the vaccine, there is general consensus among doctors that serious adverse reactions are rare and that pregnant women and young people, in particular, are better off with the vaccine than without it. While most people who get H1N1 experience mild symptoms, a recent New England Journal of Medicine study showed that among Americans hospitalized with swine flu last spring, one in four ended up in intensive care and 7 percent of them died.

The illness, unlike other flu strains, has been particularly tough on children and young adults and appears to have a disproportionately high fatality rate in pregnant women.

Health care officials are concerned that some groups, especially pregnant women, are potentially swayed by the large-scale efforts of vaccine opponents.

“One of the things they are focusing on now is immunization and pregnancy,” said Saad B. Omer, assistant professor of global health at Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, “and their perceptions of the vaccine in use of pregnant women. It is not a benign perception in this case, and could have serious impacts, because pregnant women have high risk of complication if they get the swine flu.”

The anti-vaccine movement, largely comprising activists and a handful of doctors and researchers who connect a variety of health problems — particularly autism spectrum disorders — to vaccines, has failed to find large-scale traction in the United States, where more than 90 percent of children are vaccinated.

But at a conference this month of National Vaccine Information Center, Ms. Fisher said, there were 675 people, more than double the number at the group’s last conference, and half said they were there to discuss swine flu. Unlike most people associated with the center, who have longstanding objections to vaccines or have a connection to the issue because of an autistic child, the newcomers were not traditional skeptics, Ms. Fisher said. “They came not knowing much,” she said, “and left galvanized.”

Further, vitamin vendors — who in some cases operate blogs, with postings by people who claim to be doctors finding fault with vaccines — are reporting an increase in sales related to swine flu. Michael Angelo, chief research and information officer for eVitamins.com, said sales in September for flu-related products had tripled from last September. The company, he said, has sold 17,565 vitamins that it says protects against the H1N1 virus.

Some anti-vaccine groups are also highly organized and quick to respond to openings to promote their message. For instance, this week, an 8-year-old boy from Long Island died roughly a week after receiving a swine flu vaccine, though officials from the New York State Department of Health denied a connection.

Almost instantly, on a memorial page on Newsday’s Web site for the boy, Sean Weisse, a message from an anti-vaccine advocacy group appeared: “We are so sorry to hear about Sean. My understanding, and forgive me if I’m wrong, is that this was a vaccine-related injury. If so, we would like to help you. Best regards, Stan Kurtz, Generation Rescue, Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy’s Organization.”

7 comments:

  1. I think in this discussion it's particularly important to boil this down to what we know. People are claiming the H1N1 vaccine was rushed. In reality, the government is using the same companies with the same laboratories, the same materials, and the same time frame to produce the H1N1 vaccine as they do the seasonal flu vaccine. The seasonal vaccine goes into production in March of each year and is ready for distribution in August. The H1N1 vaccine production began in May and is being distributed in late October - early November. The time frames are the same, and each process has the same methodology. The claims that the vaccine production was rushed are simply inaccurate.

    People are entitled to their opinions, but fearmongering is counterproductive to the public good. So little of what the anti-vaccine protestors are claiming has been supported with reasonable evidence.

    http://nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_90526.html

    This Medline article discusses the same topic and introduces some interesting stats. During the 1976 outbreak of swine flu, just 500 people in 43 million vaccinations contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome, with 25 deaths. Out of 43 million. And that was when the swine flu outbreak had only been spread among 240 soldiers at Fort Dix military base. In 2009, the need for a vaccine is substantially more dire, with the WHO having declared it a pandemic and thousands of deaths already logged as a result of the virus. The progress of medical technology since 1976 is also substantial.

    It seems to me that the H1N1 vaccine carries about the same complications of the seasonal flu vaccine. And if production had begun a bit earlier, according to the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (see Medline article), the H1N1 vaccine would have simply been included in the seasonal flu injection. Would we even be having this discussion if the two vaccinations were delivered together, even when that would mean the true rushing of production? I think the public is inherently more concerned when the H1N1 vaccine is delivered separately.
    -chris wagner

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everyone should have the right to decide whether or not they themselves or their children receive the swine-flu vaccination. As it is a relatively new vaccine, the long-term effects are still largely unknown. Just as with many other medications and vaccines, the only thing that will allow us to see the true effects is time. Of course, many feel that the benefits of receiving this vaccine are significant enough to outweigh the risks involved and that is their prerogative, but others are not as convinced and they are entitled to that opinion. Especially with children, vaccines have always been a debatable subject. For example, the MMR vaccination given to infants has been considered largely controversial as some people feel that there is a connection to autism. The MMR vaccination is distributed in infancy and symptoms of autism don’t usually appear until later on, which makes connecting the two difficult and therefore sparks a lot of debate. Should parents have the right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their child against swine flu? Of course the hope is the vaccine is preventing serious illness but with what side effects, does the cost outweigh the benefits?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would like to start off by saying that I agree with rachel on the topic that everyone should be able to decide whether or not they choose to get the vaccine. To focus more on the problems, it begs to ask whether individuals should or should not get it. This issue causes us to look at who we find more important in the situation: an entire population or a single individual. This is obviously contraversial.
    If we find that the population should be regarded as more important, than it is obvious that each person should be vaccinated. The problem with this is that overriding the one in caring for the whole causes a complete loss of autonomy, which seems to be the most prominent principle in medical ethics, that a person should have personal freedom in making a decision. To further support the idea of individual decision making, is all the concepts that go into a vaccine, and particularly the one being used now.
    Following up on the last topic, there are several reasons that people may disagree with the distribution of the vaccine to themselves and their children alike. First off, there is personal belief: some people may just be against in general, as some eastern societies are. But, using grounded factual proof allows for a better argument. By definition, vaccines tend to be a weaker version of the disease that is trying to be eliminated. With that said, the we don't know very much about this disease, and therefore we do not know much about what this vaccine will do; it could life saving or it could be detrimental to society itself. Further proof supports against the vaccine from a statistical stance: in the article it mentions that testing was brief and that few trials were done; if this is the case, the very next trial could prove that the vaccine presents several problems. Lastly, it mentions the idea of a former vaccine, used in a similar situation, caused a several disease upon vaccination. With these thoughts, it is easy to see why these people are skeptical; i know i would be myself and actually am for similar reasons.
    In closing, when it comes down to it, those are against the vaccine should be allowed to see how the early trials of this distribution turn out, and only at this time should they make their final decision about their beliefs for the vaccination.
    -Jared Machado

    ReplyDelete
  4. The debate of whether to get a vaccine or not is one that has been around since the idea of vaccination came about (which some say date back to 200 B.C. when people form India and China would purposely inject small bits of the smallpox virus in hopes to prevent the disease). Needless to say, the main concern of the general population is the side effects of the administered vaccines. Why are side effects such a preoccupation for patients as compared to curative drugs? Since vaccines are given to a healthy population that may or may not get the disease, the side effects seem much more severe than someone taking drugs as a treatment to a disease that they definitely have.
    The ethical concerns in the vaccine debate are the same for the H1N1 vaccine as the currently mandated MMR vaccine trio. Are we willing, as a population, to sacrifice the health of a few for the good of health of many? Is it fair to administer a vaccine that has not yet undergone clinical trials to a healthy population that may or may not get the disease? Would it be fairer to let those who get the disease (perhaps because they are at a greater risk or are not taking the proper precautions) to deal with it appropriately rather than essentially bringing disease to a healthy population? The answer to all these questions can be found in the information we don’t know… yet: Does the vaccine have side effects and, if so, what and how severe are they?
    The ethical issue for each participant in this debate is a bit different. So, let’s look more into the mother trying to make a decision of whether or not to vaccinate her child. As far as the ethically responsible act towards her child, she really must know more information and consider investing more research into the side-effects of the vaccine. She would have to rate both the side-effects of the vaccine and the ailments caused by the disease on a probability/severity scale. If the side-effects were low in probability and severity and the disease was high in probability and severity, then she would be bringing the most beneficence to her child by getting the vaccine. From the information that we do know right now, the aforementioned relation of probability and severity is quite accurate and the only ethical decision would be to get the vaccine.
    On another level, there is an ethical dilemma for this mother that concerns the well-being of her child versus the well-being of the population. The conflicting ethical principles are beneficence towards the population versus beneficence towards her child. By obtaining the vaccine for her child, she not only decreases the child risk of getting the disease but also promotes herd immunity which would decrease overall transmission of the disease within the population. However, is it fair for her child to bear the burden of side-effects in order to promote herd immunity? (Legally speaking, the answer would be yes determined by Jacobson v. MA case in 1905.) Of the people hospitalized for H1N1, one in four need attention in the intensive care unit and 7% die compared to the only reported side-effects of the vaccine which is dizziness, nausea, and soreness at the injection site. Ethically speaking, the great beneficence of herd immunity in addition to immunity of the child would outweigh the nonmaleficence principle towards the child that would be compromised by the side-effects of the vaccine. That is to say that, in this case, the nonmaleficence principle is prima fascia. With the information that we have right now about the vaccine, the ethical solution to this mother’s dilemma would be to get the vaccine for her child, even though there are some slight side-effects, to protect the child and promote herd immunity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Time and time again, scientific evidence has shown that vaccines are largely safe and do not have any major common adverse reactions. The H1N1 vaccine was tested just like any other vaccine and does not have any additional risks. People who claim that people should not get vaccines are, as Chris already said, simply practicing fearmongering. As with any medicine in existence, maybe 1 out of a few million people WILL have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Chances are though that this person had other underyling conditions that predisposed him or her to serious illness and death regardless of whether he or she received the vaccine.

    Of course, most people predict that there will be a shortage of H1N1 vaccines this year, so the government cannot force and should not force everyone to get the swine flu vaccine. People who choose to not get the swine flu vaccine due to irrational fear will simply be more at risk for getting infected.

    It slightly disgusts me to see the right or the left to use vaccines a political issue and I believe it is unethical. For example, Glenn Beck recently claimed the decision to get the H1NI vaccine came down to how much you trusted the government, as if the government had some evil plan to release untested vaccines or poison the population. The reality is that the H1N1 vaccine is the real killer and the vaccine is the best bet to minimize the number of people who fall ill due to the virus this flu season.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The fear over the H1N1 flu and its vaccine are both completely blown out of proportion. Many studies have shown that the H1N1 illness has a similar death rate as the normal seasonal flu and both share similar characteristics. I believe the reason for the increased fear is because of the type of people it effects the most. Parents have never really had to worry about their teenage kids dying from the flu or at least not have to worry about them being the most vulnerable to a flu illness. With that being said, I still believe the vaccine can be useful for those who chose to utilize it. From what I have read, it appears that the H1N1 vaccine is very similar to the seasonal flu vaccine with comparable risks. I do not believe the vaccine should be mandated by authoritative figures or organizations. If a parent choses not to vaccinate their children they are not putting others at a greater risk of illness, especially if others choose to get the vaccine. I believe the vaccines are relatively safe and the chance of long term negative effects are extremely small. In the end, it is ultimately an individuals choice to weigh the pros and cons of each side and decide accordingly. I have chosen not to receive both the seasonal and H1N1 flu after debating the pros and cons of each side. Therefore, I would not want someone to tell me I must get the vaccine. I feel strongly that it is an individuals or a parents right to decide for themselves or their children.

    -KEENAN

    ReplyDelete
  7. I too agree with the statement that everyone should have the right to decide whether or not they receive the H1N1 vaccine or any vaccines in general. As for parents, acting as their child’s surrogate-decision maker -responsible for the health and life of their child, the choice of whether to vaccinate seems much more difficult. In situations like these it is important to look at the pros and cons from a medical point of view.

    There has been a substantial amount of evidence proving that H1N1 hits children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems the hardest; so not getting the vaccine could potentially result in serious complications or even death. Another worry that most parents have (which is evident in this article) is the potentially adverse affects the vaccine itself can have, being that it was developed relatively quickly. Side effects such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) raise huge red flags to parents on the fence about their decision. GBS is a frightening yet extremely rare side affect to have, but is the possibility of having this type of adverse reaction worth possibly contracting H1N1? What is really at stake if parents decide not to vaccinate their children?
    With over 70 countries reporting cases of H1N1, the CDC declared H1N1 a pandemic and therefore should be treated as such. It’s also important to acknowledge that this strain of the flu is particularly dangerous because of its resemblance to the 1918 Spanish Influenza which killed about 50 million people worldwide and infected many more. Granted, medical technology and distribution had come a long way since 1918, but the fact still remains that H1N1 is its descendant.
    It is absolutely crucial that this is taken into account when deciding the appropriate action against the spread of H1N1. A parent not getting their child vaccinated raises the chances of their child, if infected, passing the virus on to someone else.
    After evaluating these facts and statics it seems very clear to me that parents should vaccinate their children. The harmful side effects of the vaccine, if they even occur, would affect a significantly less amount of people than H1N1 would if it matured into a pandemic similar to the 1918 flu. If we take necessary measures in our preventative care as a society (parents vaccinating their children, themselves, other members of the family etc…), a pandemic similar to the 1918 flu could be prevented.

    -caitlin

    ReplyDelete