Let’s not make Wakefield a martyr
Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick of spiked and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know argues that he does not think that Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor whose name is most linked with the MMR/autism theory, should be struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council (GMC).
In Stop witch-hunting Wakefield , Dr. Fitzgerald notes that
There is a danger that the prosecution of Dr Wakefield, which is not expected to start until next year, nearly a decade after the launch of the scare, will turn into a witch-hunt. This would play into the hands of Dr Wakefield in his self-indulgent posture of victimhood and encourage his supporters to move even further down the road towards canonising him as a martyr. It also reflects a degree of bad faith in the medical establishment as it attempts to compensate for its failure to respond effectively to the anti-MMR campaign at an earlier stage. The GMC charges fail to identify Dr Wakefield’s most important offence: this was not that he produced poor-quality science, but that instead of substantiating his improbable hypothesis, he embarked on a public campaign against MMR that could not be justified scientifically. But this campaign demanded a prompt and forceful challenge in scientific and political terms, not disciplinary measures 10 years later.
Dr. Fitzgerald also provides thoughtful commentary on the four charges of unprofessional conduct that the GMC is bringing against Dr. Wakefield. While critiquing Dr. Wakefield for not only promulgating his hypothesis about an MMR/autism link but turning this into a major public campaign, Dr. Fitzgerald’s sternest criticism is for the medical establishment who exhibited a true failure of leadership in responding to Dr. Wakefield’s theory.
One of the most important factors in the evolution of the MMR controversy was the fact that it took so long for the negative judgements on Dr Wakefield’s work that were shared virtually unanimously by his peers to get across into the public realm. The result was the persistence of parallel, but largely non-communicating, universes. ……….With a handful of distinguished exceptions, the scientists and doctors who dismissed the MMR-autism theory either remained silent or confined their discussions within medical circles. Meanwhile, the campaign against MMR promoted its claims in the public realm with great panache. Advised by a leading PR company, Dr Wakefield briefed compliant journalists, and his campaign derived substantial support from solicitors pursuing legal-aided litigation, parent groups and proprietors of separate vaccine clinics. The result was an extraordinary divergence between the expert medical consensus that the MMR-autism theory was a non-starter and the perception among sections of the public that there were doubts about the safety of the triple vaccine.
The recent journalistic rush to report on Dr. Stephen Walker’s research on the MMR and autistic children further attests to the “failures of leadership in the medical profession over MMR.”
It is not enough to challenge junk science in exclusive conferences and in specialist journals (though that is an indispensable start).
as Dr. Fitzgerald notes, in calling on the medical profession not to “vindictively” pursue Dr. Wakefield but to put its own affairs in order.
Autism parents are constantly barraged by this or that “cure” or “treatment”—even something as innocuous as a videotapes—that can make one’s child better or, even, “recovered from autism.” Remembering—if not scarred—by the painful process by which a child is diagnosed with autism and too many pronouncements of “he will never do X” and “the best you can hope for her is Y,” parents become understandably wary (if not turned off by) the doctors, the medical profession, and “autism experts,” and therefore much more susceptible to practitioners of “alternative” treatments..
Dr. Fitzgerald is right: We do not need to “canonize” Dr. Wakefield and make him a “martyr” and a sort of “autism folk hero.” Our autistic children, with all their struggles and small and large triumphs, are the real heroes and it is they who the media, and all of us, should put at the center of autism discussions, and it is to them that we need to look in determining how best to help them.
8 opinions for Let’s not make Wakefield a martyr
David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)
Jun 19, 2006 at 8:48 am
I agree that martyrdom is not advisable in Andrew Wakefield’s case, but there is the fact that his work has had serious repercussions in the UK… people have died because of him and his ‘research’. Faith in medicine (which has always been somewhat shakey) has been rocked and he has - like it or not - opened up the way for some of the most unsavioury characters to prey upon the desperation of parents whose outlook on life has been buggered by know-nothing medics.
He should have a serious penalty imposed on him. Being struck off the medical register… dunno if that’d be useful, if that makes a martyr of him. But there needs to be a serious consequence imposed on him for his behaviour.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 19, 2006 at 9:31 am
Since he is now in the USA, it would be well for the “serious consequence” to have repercussions over here, too. But I think Fitzgerald has a point in that even we who are critical of Wakefield’s work are “helping” to keep his name in the media and in the public consciousness.
Joseph
Jun 19, 2006 at 9:51 am
I actually tend to agree. What Wakefield did could be characterized as misconduct, but it’s not as terrible as other cases of misconduct. The worse Wakefield did was fail to disclose a financial conflict of interest. There’s much worse misconduct going on in the U.S. with autism research which unfortunately cannot be prosecuted (involving affiliation misrepresentation, omission of data, salami publications, failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest, prescribing drugs unapproved for certain purposes, and so on).
Julia
Jun 19, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Joseph, I’m wondering how much of that Wakefield is doing right now.
Autism Vox » How To Treat Autism According to Dr. Wakefield
Feb 4, 2007 at 4:38 am
[…] Dr. Andrew Wakefield is in the news again, claiming that “diet and drugs” (with no mention of education) ought to be the components of a treatment plan for autistic children. Dr. Wakefield will issue a “stark warning” about autism at the Autism is Treatable! Biomedical Conference on February 10th in Bournemouth, England, as reported in the February 3rd Daily Mail. Dr. Wakefield was the primary author of the first paper suggesting a mercury-autism link (a paper that has since been retracted by the journal that published it). As reported in the Daily Mail: Dr Andrew Wakefield will claim that thousands of children with autism should not be receiving psychiatric help, but should be treated with drugs and a change in diet. […]
Nik
Jul 16, 2007 at 2:14 am
With this doctor being struck off “for gross misconduct” I think is pathetic, how many doctors out there know what the hell is actually going on?
Almost on a daily basis we here something is good for you and then the following day somethig we have eaten/taken for years is bad for you.
I give you the example of saccarhin - a mouse was fed 2000 times the daily dose an average adult person takes and it developed cancer! Saccarhin was banned. I believe doctors should be allowed their opinions withou the fear of being struck off.
My nephew is autistic and I believe this was caused by the MMR jab! And doctors who dish out these injections will surely make a connection with the drug and the condition - eventually!
I believe this is the case of the pharmacy companies trying to dodge the bullet on this one and realising they have made a mistake and having to pay out millions in compensation
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 16, 2007 at 8:44 am
I think one has to consider the far-reaching impact of Wakefield’s views, and not only on whether or not a parent decides to vaccinate a child, but also on autism treatment. The whole case indeed reminds me of how parents need to be very, very careful about considering doctors and treatments—-here in New Jersey, malpractice insurance rates for doctors have gotten so high (for OB-GYNs in particular) that more than a few have left the state.
Legal Standards, Science, and the Cause of Autism
Mar 27, 2008 at 1:41 am
[…] 27th BBC News notes. Specifically, Dr. Wakefield (who has sometimes been portrayed as a crusading figure sticking up for the “litle guy” in Eli Stone-ish fashion) faces these […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: