“His Duty as a Human Being”—and As a Doctor?
It was his duty as a human being to help mothers who came to him seeking answers.
Says the March 28th Times about Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who is “at the centre of the MMR vaccine controversy.” Dr. Wakefield’s comments were made in a hearing before the General Medical Council in London; he faces being struck off the medical register in regard to “serious professional misconduct relating to investigations undertaken on 12 children between 1996 and 1998.” (More details about the specific charges here.)
Just to consider Dr. Wakefield’s claims that he felt it was his “duty as a human being” to help mothers who said that their child showed signs of autism after receiving the MMR. (A link between the MMR and autism has been disproven; see this study and also this study.) One would not wish to take issue with Dr. Wakefield for feeling he had to rise to do his “duty as a human being.” One wonders, though, about his duties as a doctor charged to “first do no harm.” More than a few would say that the continued association of the MMR vaccine and autism in the public consciousness has been unfortunate, to say the least. (Here’s Respectful Insolence on the “incredible shrinking causation claim” between vaccines and autism.) Earlier this year, 12 children in the San Diego area became ill with measles; their parents had chosen not to have them vaccinated (because of fears of a hypothetical autism-vaccine link) or the children were babies and too young to have receive their immunizations.
How far did Dr. Wakefield think through—did he think through—-the potential results of claiming that there was a link between a vaccine that all children are supposed to take and autism?
Tags: asd, asperger, autism, Health, jab, measles, mercury, mmr, Parenting, pdd-nos, shots, Vaccines, wakefield
11 opinions for “His Duty as a Human Being”—and As a Doctor?
Patrick
Mar 28, 2008 at 3:47 pm
He thought it through all the way to the patent office. As he filed for a patent on one of the non-combination, or single jab versions of the MMR.
Oh yes, He thought about it, and was also thinking about how stinking rich he would be in royalties from the sale of his patented formulation.
What he failed to see, were the loonies in USA that would pick up the ball and turn it into an ‘all vaccinations are bad’ conspiracy theory. Such a bad oversight on his part, not thinking that there were crazed woo beleivers in the US that would take his argument and turn the stupid up all the way until it scorches. (Not just burning.)
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Apparently he earned £150 an hour from a law firm that planned to sue vaccine’s manufacturer, per the Daily Mail.
Emily
Mar 28, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I like the way he entertains at parties.
Regan
Mar 28, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Well, as you noted, he can continue to be a human being and the council can decide whether he can continue to be a doctor. That seems fair.
Even assuming a lapse of judgement or uncertainties in the beginning, there seems to have been several junctures to cogitate, “What if I’m wrong?” or “Maybe I should rethink this.”, or “What is the data saying?”. Not having done so, the alternative is to ride the whole thing out to its conclusion.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
Mar 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm
£150/hr?
F*ck me! I’m in the wrong morals game here!!!!!
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Kids’ birthday parties.
Club 166
Mar 29, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I have mixed feelings about Wakefield getting his license pulled.
Is it right for a doctor to be an opportunist, and to pursue making money? Absolutely not, but unfortunately I know a sizeable minority of doctors who approach medicine in that fashion, and none of the ones I know practice medicine in a fashion that would cause them to lose their license.
Is it wrong for a doctor to profit from a medically related patent or invention? I don’t think so. But if one does, there needs to be full disclosure to all patients where a conflict of interest might exist.
Was the paying of money for blood at the birthday party unethical? Very tacky, yes, but if carried out correctly (proper informed consent obtained from parents) it wouldn’t necessarily be unethical.
So the bottom line for me is that I don’t know enough one way or the other to say whether Wakefield should lose his medical license.
From what I know, he is a shabby excuse for a man, and not someone I would ever go to as a physician, or recommend. I think he deserves to be prosecuted for malpractice if he did procedures without medical justification or consent. But I also don’t think that any doctor that is unconventional should lose his license. So I’m not sure whether Wakefield’s particular offenses add up to enough to lose his license. But I’m glad that a committee is looking at it.
Whether or not they pull his license, he’s certainly through as a legitimate physician. And everyone knows that you can still be big in the land of “alternative” medicine without a medical license, so in the end it won’t make much difference.
Joe
Regan
Mar 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm
If it is determined that he reported falsified or biased results due to undisclosed vested interests…I would say that would be sufficient.
It is not unheard of for scientists to report results that are preliminary or ultimately shown to be refuted as more data is collected…that’s the nature of the game. However if one knew about the uncertainties or methodological confounds and still reported or misrepresented results as if the negative or contradictory results did not exist, and especially if it was done out of motives of personal enrichment, that is a different thing. Other people in other fields have been called out on the mat for that. It’s how it should work if the system has any integrity at all.
I agree that some of the things on the surface seem to be more tacky than criminal but then I am not familiar with the particular ethical code of the medical profession.
At this point it is in the committee’s hands to make the determinations.
I suspect unless some kind of criminal or additional civil charge is brought that A. Wakefield will still have professional opportunities as a speaker or consultant.
Club 166
Mar 30, 2008 at 9:14 am
…If it is determined that he reported falsified or biased results due to undisclosed vested interests…I would say that would be sufficient.
I agree.
I’m afraid that if he doesn’t lose his license that he’ll use that as justification that all of his findings were right, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Joe
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 30, 2008 at 12:38 pm
And if he does lose it, how will that be understood here in the US…..
Emily
Mar 30, 2008 at 9:42 pm
166–From what I can tell about the birthday party event, it doesn’t sound like he got clearance from any instituional human research oversight/ethics committee or that he adhered to the Helsinki protocols. That requires some kind of consequence.
He’s left a trail of evidence that points to a strong tendency to keep the light of truth at a low setting. There were apparently undisclosed vested interests. In that initial paper, I wouldn’t say necessarily that the results per se were demonstrably biased, but the conclusions–and those were what made the headlines–were.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: