Petition PE676 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to inform all health boards, health practitioners, immunologists and organisations that are involved in the childhood vaccination programme in Scotland of the opportunity that is now available for parents to choose the mercury-free Infanrix instead of vaccines with thiomersal, which contains mercury, for the immunisation of children against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.At its meeting on 26 November 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to seek its comments on the issues that are raised in the petition. The committee expressed concern that parents may not be aware that the mercury-free vaccine Infanrix is available on request, despite an apparent commitment by the Executive to the provision of choice about the vaccine during a parliamentary debate on 6 February 2003. The Executive's response states that the balance of benefits and risks of thiomersal-containing vaccines remains overwhelmingly positive. However, it has for some time been the intention of the UK health departments to phase out the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines as and when equally effective thiomersal-free alternatives become available and are licensed for use in the UK. Work is proceeding to that end.Members will recall that there was a members' business debate on the removal of thiomersal from vaccines on 6 February 2003, during which the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care stated:"It is at the heart of our policy to ensure that parents are given facts about vaccines in a dispassionate and accurate way, in order to enable them to make informed choices."—Official Report, 6 February 2003; c 17983.
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
Childhood Vaccines (PE676)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 5
- Carolyn Leckie SSP 5
- Mike Watson Lab 4
- John Scott Con 3
- Linda Fabiani SNP 1
The record
18 contributionsI am extremely concerned about a number of issues because of the insufficient explanation that the Executive has offered. There is a wee bit of playing with words. The response mentions the recommendation of the thiomersal-containing vaccine, but it does not explain why it is recommended and does not go into issues such as the fact that the thiomersal-containing vaccine is cheaper. Perhaps the Executive is not trying to represent the matter in this way, but the response is constructed to make it sound as if a preservative that increases a vaccine's shelf life somehow has some relationship to its efficacy and ability to provide immunity. That is utter nonsense. The response does not help us to get right into the issues in question.Since the petition was submitted and presented to the committee, further research carried out in the US suggests that thiomersal might have a relationship with autism. On the basis that we should follow the precautionary principle, a thiomersal-free alternative should be available and the matter subject to parental choice. The vagueness of the timetable and the Executive's lack of willingness to ensure that there is publicity and that parents can make a proper, informed choice about a thiomersal-free vaccine are unacceptable.As someone who has worked in the health profession, I know that there is an absence of audit of, consistency in or control over informed choice across a spectrum of drug and vaccine administration issues. I am not convinced that parents are aware that there is a choice. The Executive has a responsibility to make that choice available.More important, given that developed countries have withdrawn vaccines that contain thiomersal and that there is certainly evidence to warrant concern and the application of the precautionary principle, I want the Executive to tell us why that has not happened here and whether it comes down to cost. I am always concerned when I see references to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, because its members have more than 100 direct and indirect vested interests in pharmaceutical companies, research and so on.As a result, I am disappointed but not surprised by the Executive's response. We should raise some of the concerns that I have referred to and perhaps ask it to reconsider its decision on promoting thiomersal-free vaccines. For example, is the Executive able to show that parents are being informed about alternatives in the health service? I am not convinced that that is happening.
I want to focus on the fact that the Executive has not responded adequately to the contents of the petition, which urged it to inform health boards, GPs and so on about the thiomersal-free option. Has the Executive done so? If so, what method did it use? After all, such information can be set out in a wee paragraph in a 10-page circular that goes into a filing cabinet drawer and is forgotten about.Moreover, the response appears to contradict what ministers have been saying about parents being given every opportunity to make informed choices. For example, the letter says:"The Executive has no immediate plans for further publicity"on this matter.As I have said, I want to know what has been done, how it was done and how the Executive plans to give people an informed choice if it is also saying that it is doing no further publicity. Our concerns and the question at the petition's core have not been answered.
I do not disagree with Linda Fabiani's point; however, I feel that Carolyn Leckie went over the top a bit. The Executive's response says that the chief medical officer's advice"is that there is no evidence of harm caused by doses of thiomersal in vaccines".Who are we to say that such harm has been caused? I do not know whether Carolyn is suggesting that the chief medical officer is not being truthful. Why would he give that advice if it was not the case? We are in no position to question the chief medical officer's opinion, which is down in black and white. Indeed, what reason would we have to raise such questions, other than the information that we have received from the petitioners? I think that Carolyn has overreacted. I endorse the point about keeping parents informed, but to suggest that the chief medical officer is lying is to make a serious charge and I see no basis for that.
Carolyn Leckie said that vaccines that contain thiomersal have been withdrawn from use in other countries. In which countries has that happened?
The United States of America.
Have any other countries withdrawn vaccines for the same reason?
Many other developed countries have done so.I respond to Mike Watson's comment, because he makes a serious allegation. I have not accused the chief medical officer of lying. I do not dispute that the chief medical officer has his opinion on the matter, but I think that that opinion is wrong when considered in the context of the available research. I have scanned the research and there is a swathe of evidence that it is not appropriate to use vaccines that contain thiomersal. That evidence has been accepted by the United States Senate. We should ask the chief medical officer and the Executive why they consider that that evidence should be disregarded.
It is interesting that Carolyn Leckie prays in aid a decision of the United States Senate. She might not care to endorse some of the Senate's other recent decisions. That is not a solid basis on which to proceed and I cannot understand why she is taking such a strong line on the matter. If we do not accept that the chief medical officer is taking advice on the basis of medical opinion in this country, we are basically saying that he or she is a liar, which is a very serious allegation. I do not think that I am overstating the case.
I do not accept the infallibility of anyone.
I would prefer to accept the opinion of our chief medical officer than that of the American Senate, if I had to make the choice.
If we question the chief medical officer's decision, we will stray into dangerous territory, because that is not the subject of the petition.
That is a separate issue.
The petition calls for parents to be informed. I also point out that the regulation of vaccines is a reserved matter. We should not stray into territory that does not relate to the petition.I am happy to ask questions, but we must ensure that those questions relate to the petition and are valid in the context of what the Public Petitions Committee can consider.
I think that we can all agree that the Executive's claim to favour parental choice in the matter is contradicted by its actions. We should ask the Executive what it has done to inform health boards about alternative vaccines, as Linda Fabiani suggested. We should ask what freedom health boards have and whether the financial implications of using alternatives are the motivation behind the Executive's failure to provide information and promote choice.
I am happy to ask such questions and I do not suggest that Carolyn Leckie is not asking valid questions. However, we must remain focused on the petition's aims. We will serve the petitioner better by asking the Executive the questions that the petition raises than by challenging the chief medical officer's decisions. Are members happy to focus on the petition's aims?Members indicated agreement.
We are being pulled back into line.
We will await a response to our questions.
In this meeting
Everything on 28 Apr 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 28 April 2004 (Morning) Petitions · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 54
- New Petitions Petitions · 42
- New Petitions Petitions · 30
- New Petitions Petitions · 3
- New Petitions Petitions · 8
- New Petitions Petitions · 10
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 10
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 11
- Current Petitions Petitions · 18
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.