Ethics of the MMR controversy

Ethics of the MMR controversyIntroductionIn February 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield from Londons majestic part with Hospital suggested a link between the combined MMR vaccination and autism (Guardian, 2008). This link was widely reported by the media, causing parents to doubt the safety of vaccinating their children. As a result there was a huge campaign by the health Protection Agency to reassure parents that the vaccinum was indeed safe, but state-supported opinion is mute divided and this lack of vaccination has created a window for transmitting (General Medical Community, 2009) and a steep rise in reported cases of Measles.This essay will review the ethical implications of Dr. Wakefields work and those involved in the unfolding MMR Controversy.Should the study wear been published?Did the people and organisations involved act ethically?The MediaDespite the minor nature of Dr. Wakefields paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmenta l disorder in children the urge ran with its findings, using headlines such as Fresh safety fears raised over MMR laggard, New MMR link found to autism, MMR fears gain support, MMR risk of brain disorders?- from the Daily carry gaining support from previous ministry aides, columnists and writers (Smith 2004). Even in 2001 the Blairs (the then Prime Minister and his wife 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 deal over the MMR vaccination was split equally, with G Ps and medical practicians taking both sides and only 23% sure that the evidence was clearly in support of the combined MMR vaccine. The study was undertaken by Cardiff University between January and September 2002 and surveyed over 1,000 people. With close scrutiny paid to over 2,000 media (papers, wireless and TV) reports. The survey concluded that 48% of people feel that journalists, should not (until findings are backed by further investigations and studies) report alarming research however this is still a minority view. Professor Lewis of Cardiff Universitys School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies released the following statementThe research also has implications for the debate about fairness in journalism, suggesting that legal definitions of law in broadcast journalism should not be interpreted in a simplistic fashion, BBC, 2003.Further research, such as that by Chen and DeStefano (1998), preferably clearly states that misinterpretation of Dr. Wakefields research could have been avoided by clarifying the difference between causality 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 MMR scandal does not end with Dr. Wakefields paper further articles such as MMR jab sp ic-and-span 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 study was published in the Lancet Journal. Doubt is occurring despite a massive matching effort by the biomedical community to debunk such research showing the grip that this story has had on the population for over 10 years. rough articles have been published in the media criticising the way 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 scare but he was not alone in completing the study that started it all, the full list of label sites 13 co-writers, their names and roles are listed in the original journal articleA J Wakefield was the aged(a) 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 citation 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 behaviour (on Dr. Wakefields part) during the study. As head of the study (Senior Scientific Investigator (Wakefield et al., 1998)) Dr. Wakefield would have had to have sought p ermission from the Royal Free Hospitals ethics board before commencing his studies. It was alleged by Harris that, after approval was granted, Wakefield changed the methodology to include lumbar punctures involving sedation (unknown, 2004). This public outing of Dr. Wakefields proposed bungle and subsequent complaints by Harris resulted in an enquiry by the General Medical Council, unearthing more damaging claims (General Medical Council, 2010).It was found that children were subject to unnecessary colonoscopies, lumbar punches and atomic number 56 meals (without approval), that Wakefield was not allowed to treat children and children were enrolled that did not vista the strict conditional prerequisites of the study (Boseley, 2010).But Dr. Wakefields short 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 (o n behalf of Royal Free Hospital) for a vaccine against measles and for treating IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease), he had (in February 1998) utilise for ethical approval to trial a new measles vaccine under a new company called Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltdand been found to have paid children 5, at his sons birthday party, to take unethical blood samples (Boseley, 2010).Further research regarding Wakefields conflicting interests, in particular his thing 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 share 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 Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltd on child 10, also deemedabuse of Wakefields position of trust as a medical practitionert ext and quotation (DeeTee, 2010).The basis for Wakefields Transfer Factor treatment can be found in the work of Dr. Herman H Fundenberg (author of Dialysable lymphocyte extract (DlyE) in infantile onset autism A pilot study., published in discontinued fringe journal Biotherapy(Fundenberg, 1996)) a discredited and indefinitely suspended American doctor, who has admitted to treating pains at home with his own bone marrow. Fundenberg not only provide the basis 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 the International Child Development Resource Center in connection with a Christian ministry called the Good News Doctor Foundation. He maintains th at 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. useable http//www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/02/health-medicalresearch. stretch out accessed 15 Feb 2010.General Medicine Community. (2009). Imposing Measles plaguey Due to MMR Controversy. Available http//stanford.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/imposing-measles-epidemic-due-to-mmr-controversy/603680. Last 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. Last accessed 16 Feb 2010.Goldacre, B. (2008). The Medias MMR Hoax.Available http//www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/. Last accessed 16 Feb 2010.BBC. (2003). Parents misled by media over MMR. Available http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/nort h_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/news/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 angiotensin converting enzyme Injections, and Dr. Wakefields Lack of Ethics. Available http//www.fatherslobby.com/vaccinations/single_injections.html. Last accessed 17 Feb 2010.Boseley, S. (2010). 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/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 20 10.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.