Vaccination policies: individual rights v community health
BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7223.1448 (Published 04 December 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:1448
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
King (Editorial 4/12/99) oversimplifies the debate surrounding
rubella vaccination.
In 1970 a rubella vaccine was recommended by the Department of Health
for 11-13 year old girls. Subsequently 10% of 11 year olds, 14% of 12 year
olds and 10% of 13 year olds were vaccinated.[1] In 1972 coverage was
extended to sero-negative women of childbearing age in special
occupations, such as teachers and nurses. In 1974 this was extended to
include sero-negative women of childbearing age. In 1976 the advice was
repeated and augmented. [2]
From the year of the vaccine’s introduction rubella-associated
abortions were declining, despite only school-aged children being widely
vaccinated; evidence that rubella terminations were decreasing anyway (in
1971 1,018 rubella terminations, in 1972 738, in 1974 633 and in 1976
273). [3]
Since rubella was not notifiable and there were no adequate records
of rubella-related terminations prior to 1971, it is impossible to
establish whether this decrease was due to the vaccine. It can be said
that it was probably not. When the campaign began, the Department of
Health did not expect results until the mid 1980s.
Between 1970 and 1977 the live birth rate dropped from 83.3 to 58.1
(live births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44) and this is when the greatest
decrease in terminations (and probably congenital rubella) occurred. The
birth rate increased in the late 1970s, as did terminations, and declined
again in the early 1980s, as did terminations. Since there was no mass
vaccination programme of adults, and since those vaccinated had not yet
reached adulthood, the at-risk population was not protected.
From 1979 school leavers, women attending family planning clinics,
and female university students were given the rubella vaccine.[4] The new
policy caused an increase in the number of vaccine-associated
terminations.[5] In 1971 vaccine associated terminations formed 4% of all
rubella-related terminations, and by 1992 83%, a total of 954 in just over
2 decades. This is disappointing given that the motivation for the
campaign was to prevent the need for abortions.
By 1987 the number of rubella-associated terminations nationally had
fallen below 100. When the JCVI chose to introduce a combined measles,
mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) for infants of 15 months in 1988, the
downwards trend continued. This is similar to the strategy employed in
Greece, yet which the editorial by King, contradictorily, cites as the
reason for the success of the British programme.
Some studies report a high proportion of rubella among the
vaccinated, with as high as 80% of recently vaccinated populations
contracting the disease during epidemics.[6] In Glasgow it was almost
impossible, serologically, to determine whether a woman was vaccinated
since men (unvaccinated) and women had similar rubella antibody levels,
and records of vaccination were seldom complete.[7] The trend is to
classify all cases as unvaccinated unless the person demands that they
have been vaccinated or if records are clear; this is a potential bias in
any evaluation.
King described the US programme as reducing the annual number of
babies with congenital rubella syndrome. The figures quoted for 1964 (an
estimate) and 1983 are fortuitous. The general fertility rate (GFR) for
the latter was at its lowest. By 1991 the GFR had increased and so too had
congenital rubella, with trends in GFR, rubella notifications and
congenital rubella mirroring one another.[8]
The constant changes in strategy reflect an administration failing to
achieve goals in the face of rising costs and a nebulous task. i.e. how to
protect an age-group 30 years wide from a disease carried by an even wider
age-group? The role of adults in rubella transmission is known[9] but this
is rarely given due consideration in programmes. Not only this, but
rubella is one of many teratogenic infections, including cytomegalovirus,
treponema pallidum, parvovirus B19 (which causes 150 foetal deaths
annually) and toxoplasma gondii.
The decreased pertussis vaccine uptake in the 1970s leading to
“epidemics” is regularly erected as a justification for the suppression of
information. It is seldom mentioned that there was no proportionate
increase in mortality or hospital admissions[10] [11] compared to previous
secular rises. Even if all of the 45% who defaulted had been in social
classes I and II (an impossibility), such a disparity is highly improbable
and is more likely ascribed to an artefactual epidemic, the result of over
-notification. This is a recognised phenomenon which follows increased
awareness, such as after an official warning.[12]
Many years of changes in rubella vaccination policy inevitably must
lead to some favourable correlations. There is, however, no credible
evidence of the interruption of transmission or a significant reduction in
infection. The high toll and emotional distress from the accidental
vaccination of pregnant women, and the risk of arthritis which is either
transient[13] [14] or chronic,[15] [16] means that the question of
rubella vaccination should be met with debate and balanced information. I
oppose the veiled suggestion, and disagree with the evidence, that it is
better to suppress debate because vaccination programmes offer a known and
quantifiable benefit which would be threatened by informed consent.
Gregory Rose MPH
No competing interests
1. Department of Health and Social Security. On the State of the
Public Health. DHSS: London 1970.
2. Department of Health and Social Security. On the State of the Public
Health. DHSS: London 1978.
3. OPCS. England and Wales: Rubella-associated terminations of pregnancy.
Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys: London 1994.
4. Department of Health and Social Security. On the State of the Public
Health. DHSS: London1974.
5. Department of Health and Social Security. On the State of the Public
Health. DHSS: London1986.
6. Allan B. Aust Nurs J 1978. May.
7. Gilmore D, Robinson ET, Gilmour WH, Urquhart GE. Effect of rubella
vaccination programme in schools on rubella immunity in a general practice
population. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 284: 628-30.
8. Centers for Disease Control. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Summ.] 1984,
1994.
9. Schoenbaum SC, Biano S, Mack T. Epidemiology of congenital rubella
syndrome: The role of maternal parity. JAMA. 1975; 233: 151-155.
10. Barrie H. Campaign of Terror. Am J Dis Child 1983; 137: 922-3.
11. Stewart GT. 1984, 135. Whooping cough and the whooping cough vaccine:
the risks and benefits debate. (Letter) Am J Epidemiol 1984; 119: 135.
12. Coggon D, Rose G, Barker DJP. Epidemiology for the Uninitiated. 3rd
Edition. BMJ: London 1993, 57.
13. Cooper LZ, Ziring PR, Weiss HJ et al. Transient arthritis after
rubella vaccination. Am J Dis Child 1969; 118: 218.
14. Grand MG, Wyll SA, Gehlbach, SH et al. Clinical reactions following
rubella vaccination. A prospective analysis of joint, muscular, and
neuritic symptoms. JAMA 1970; 220: 2287.
15. Tingle AJ, Chantler JK, Pot KH et al. Postpartum rubella immunization:
Association with development of prolonged arthritis, neurological sequelae
and chronic rubella viremia. J Infect Dis 1985; 152: 606.
16. Howson CP, Fineberg HV. Adverse events following pertussis and rubella
vaccines. Summary of a report of the Institute of Medicine. JAMA 1992; 267
(3): 392-6.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Vaccination policies: individual rights v. community health
In an otherwise thoughtful editorial comment (p 1448, 4th December)
on international data, Susan King repeats the fallacy that a fall in
acceptance of triple vaccine (DTP) in the UK in the early 1970's led to
"Pertussis epidemics". This is incorrect. Pertussis epidemics continued,
as before and subsequently with a rise in unvalidated notifications in
1977-79 but hardly or not at all in validated hospital admissions or
deaths (1). A similar rise in validated cases occurred in Sweden (2) where
acceptance of standard DTP exceeded 80%. There was no increase in West
Germany where DTP was not given as a routine (3). In the USA, with high
acceptance of five, not three injections of DTP, often compulsorily for
school entry, hospital admissions for whooping cough exceeded those in the
UK, pro rata, during this period (4). The effectiveness of Rubella
vaccine varies similarly, as described by Dr King.
Your sub-title that "We can't afford to be half-hearted about vaccination
programmes" implies that risks of infection and disease are constant
everywhere and that all of the 8 - 10 recommended childhood vaccines are
equally effective, necessary and safe. In fact, there are differentials
influenced strongly by Bayesian variations in trends, notifications and
morbidity of target infections, and also by contraindications, living
conditions, manufacture of vaccines, batch differences and other
unmentioned aspects of usage. All of these require discriminate monitoring
and the option of informed consent without which vaccination programmes
cannot respect individual rights, be more than half-hearted or protect
community health..
Gordon T. Stewart, M.D.
(conflict of interest: none; support: none).
References:
1 Morbidity and mortality of notifiable infectious diseases, 1970-90.
Office of National Statistics and the Public Health Laboratory Service.
2 Romanus V, Jonsell R, Bergquist S-E. Pertussis in Sweden after the
cessation of general immunization in 1979. Ped Inf Dis J 1987; 6; 364-
371.
3 Ehrengut W. Convulsive reactons after pertussis immunization.
Dtsch Med Wochenschrif 1974; 99; 2273-2275.
4 Stewart GT. Whooping cough in the United States and Britain. New
Eng J Med 1983; 308; 464.
Competing interests: No competing interests