GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: The children of European vaccine sceptics are getting measles

domingo, 9 de septiembre de 2018

BioEdge: The children of European vaccine sceptics are getting measles

BioEdge: The children of European vaccine sceptics are getting measles

Bioedge

The children of European vaccine sceptics are getting measles

by Michael Cook | 8 Sep 2018 |

According to the World Health Organisation more than 41,000 people in Europe had been infected with measles in the first half of 2018. At least 37 people have died. The total far exceeds the 12-month totals reported for every other year this decade. So far, the highest annual total between 2010 and 2017 was 23,927 in 2017 and the lowest was 5273 in 2016.

Seven countries have seen over 1000 infections in children and adults this year (France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine). Ukraine has been the hardest hit, with over 23,000 people affected. Serbia reported the highest number of deaths --14.

What’s going on?

The measles virus is exceptionally contagious. To prevent outbreaks, at least 95% immunization coverage is needed every year in every community, as well as efforts to reach children, adolescents and adults who missed routine vaccinations. But some communities in Europe have slumped to below 70%.

One reason for low rates of vaccination is fear of the MMR vaccine. “In 2016 the Vaccine Confidence Project found that the European region was the most sceptical in the world on vaccine safety,” says Pauline Paterson, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

According to The Guardian, “The cause of the vaccine doubters has been embraced by some political movements, who advocate ‘parent choice’. The Five Star movement in Italy opposes a law that would have fined parents who do not immunise their children, while in France, Marine le Pen of the newly-renamed National Rally party is against mandatory vaccination.”

Sunday, September 9, 2018

John Robertson was an American scholar in law and bioethics who died last year. He is best known for making a strong case for “procreative liberty”, whether procreation takes place naturally or with the help of technology. As a tribute to his influence, the current issue of the Journal of Law and the Biosciences contains several articles about this theory.

Robertson’s theme was that reproductive choices which do not harm the interests of others should not be subject to regulation or prohibition. In his best-known book, Children of Choice, published in 1996, he discussed abortion, IVF, surrogacy and pre-natal genetic modification. But time has moved on. The principle of effectively unconstrained “procreative liberty” is being used to justify other developments, some of which are discussed in the Journal, including unisex gestation.

What I found interesting was that Robertson, in a paper written not long before his death, agreed that a male pregnancy (after a womb transplant) could be ethically justified, but only if it were necessary for genetic reproduction. Even he wanted to draw a line somewhere.

However, the author of one of tribute essays questions this restriction. Enjoying the experience of gestation is reason enough, she says. (See below). I suppose that this raises the question of whether it is possible to draw any lines, anywhere, once we agree that reproductive rights should not be limited.