What pro-vaccination choice means to me
This blog has been bouncing around for a very long time and I just felt that now was the right time to send it live. The events of recent weeks have made me realise how important it is to define exactly what the AVN stands for. I did this pretty clearly in my responses to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) but not many people read that and certainly, very few media outlets have.
This definition does not necessarily represent the opinion of all AVN members - we are a group of thousands of individuals with our own experiences and ideas - but it does represent the viewpoint of the AVN as an organisation and I believe it is vital to state, as clearly as possible, why it is that the AVN is not anti-vaccination.
In the last couple of weeks, with all of the resistance to my appearing as a speaker at the Woodford Folk Festival and the efforts to force sponsors of that great event and its concurrent Festival - The Dreaming - to either take away my right to speak or to punish the Festivals for allowing me to appear there, the words 'anti-vaccine' have been lobbed at both myself and at the AVN.
I understand why it is so important for a certain segment of the community to use that term. To call someone 'anti' anything automatically paints a picture in people's minds of something negative. 'Anti' is a prefix with bad connotations and labelling the AVN as anti-vaccine will mean that some people will form an opinion of this group based solely on that incorrect moniker. It's a calculated tactic by those who oppose our rights to choose - but it is not accurate and using that term is immoral if it doesn't accurately describe us - especially after we have said so many times that we are not anti-vaccine.
I remember very clearly a couple of years ago, being in the studio of Channel 7 for the filming of their Sunday Night programme. You can read the whole story at the archive of our previous blog by clicking here. But I think it is instructive, in relation to what I am discussing here, to read about how Dr Giselle Cooke was treated by the host of this show, Mike Munro, and how he insisted on calling her anti-vaccine when she stated that she wasn't:
Before filming started, Mike Munro talked to Peter [McIntyre] and Giselle [Cooke] about how he would introduce them both. He told Peter that he would introduce him as the head of the NCIRS and that was agreed upon. He then turned to Giselle and said that he would introduce her as Dr Giselle Cook, an anti vaccine doctor who hasn’t given a vaccine in 18 years. Giselle objected to this and said that she was not anti-vaccine – she was pro-choice. Mike said, but it’s true that you haven’t given a vaccine in 18 years, isn’t it? Giselle said that this was true but that she wasn’t anti-vaccine and she objected to being labelled in that way. Mike told her that he would introduce her that way and she could then refute it.
One of the women in the audience then called out to say that Giselle was a guest on the program and as such, she should be treated with respect and introduced in the way she wished to be. Mike, completely ignoring common courtesy and showing his own bias, refused to listen and those who watched the show would have seen how Giselle was treated.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. What does it mean to be anti-vaccine.
According to some of our critics, simply providing information - sourced from peer-reviewed medical journals - about the downside of this medical procedure is enough to make one anti-vaccine.
So, does that mean the doctors who wrote those studies were anti-vaccine too? How ridiculous - of course they aren't!
To be anti-vaccine, you have to be telling others that they should not or must not be vaccinated. In fact, you would be saying that all vaccines must immediately be withdrawn and nobody should be allowed to use them.
The AVN never has and never will take this stance. We are not anti-vaccine. We support open information being provided to all parents and others who are making the decision about whether or not to vaccinate. Unlike our opponents and a majority of the medical community, we feel it would be wrong to tell others what they should do and we have no stake in what parent's decisions ultimately will be.
We support independent testing of all drugs and vaccines - not the current regime where the drug companies test their own products without any real oversight and these products are then licensed by the TGA which is funded fully by the phramaceutical companies. And we support full reporting of vaccine adverse reactions, tracking of vaccination status in cases of infectious diseases as well as an end to any financial links between vaccination compliance and government payments. None of this is anti-vaccine. In fact, if is pro-vaccine safety, pro-science and pro-choice.
I myself will never take another vaccine nor will any of my children (though as adults, they are free to make their own decisions and I will support them in whatever choices they do make for themselves and for their future families). Having had a child who had serious reactions to his vaccines, I feel that it would be foolhardy and irresponsible for me to take that chance again. Aside from that, through 20 years of research, I have made a personal choice that for my family, the risks of vaccination far outweigh any potential benefits.
But that is my choice. I would never dream of telling anyone else what their choice should be.
Saying that my personal choice not to choose to continue vaccinating makes either myself or the AVN anti-vaccine would be the same as saying that people who have anaphylactic reactions to antibiotics are against antibiotics because they won't continue taking them; or people who are Catholic are anti-Protestant because they choose to worship God differently. It makes no sense. My personal choice is my choice only. The AVN does not make other people's choices - full stop. Nor do we judge them on what choice they ultimately do make.
Our Code of Ethics states (amongst many other clauses) that:
...The Code is binding on all AVN Office Bearers and such Members of the Committee and such Subcommittees as may be formed from time to time as the need arises.
To encourage all families to be fully informed with regards to medical procedures in general - vaccination specifically - enabling them to make educated decisions.
Collection, publication and dissemination of information, and the provision of resource facilities.
We go on in the Code to say to anyone who volunteers for the AVN:
Remember we cannot tell the parent to vaccinate or not to vaccinate their children or themselves.
Do not allow your attitudes on this subject to influence your dealings with any parent and support them in their decision - whatever that decision may be.
Do not give medical advice. Any parents needing medical advice are to be encouraged to see a competent health professional.
This has been part of our Code of Ethics since the AVN was first formed in 1997. All Committee members, all volunteers, anyone who has ever worked with us for any length of time, has been required to sign a form agreeing to abide by this Code. We introduced this Code (we were not forced to introduce it - we did it ourselves because we were committed to not only the issue of informed choice, but also to the idea that everyone has the right to make this decision freely and without duress) to demonstrate publicly that we support all Australian's rights - no matter what their decision on this issue.
Anyone who calls the AVN anti-vaccine either has no idea what the term means, or does not know much about our group.