Page 2531 - Week 08 - Thursday, 19 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that what the Government is doing is very good. In some states in America you cannot enrol a child in a school unless they are completely immunised against all these diseases. I also understand that that is so in some parts of Europe. I understand that in Germany and Holland a child cannot even be put into child-care unless the child has been immunised against all diseases. At least we are trying to encourage people to do it, not force them to do it; but I think that, if it comes to that, sometimes you have to force people to look after their children.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (3.34): Madam Speaker, immunisation has been repeatedly demonstrated in research trials to be one of the most effective medical interventions of the century. Immunisation does prevent disease, disability and death, despite the claims of some vocal minority groups. Just as in the debate about fluoride, the blinkered opponents choose to ignore the positive benefits of immunisation. This Government is concerned about what can be described as noisy minorities and their opposition to immunisation which frightens parents, causing them in some cases to stop immunising their children and thus placing them at risk from vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, whooping cough or diphtheria.
While the proponents have little credibility in their arguments, there are those who do take note, unfortunately. Of particular concern are the arguments put forward for homoeopathic immunisation, the anti-whooping cough vaccine proponents and the belief that immunisation causes sudden infant death syndrome. The arguments put forward opposing immunisation are generally based on a rejection of evidence supporting immunisation, a rejection of the applicability of the scientific method, or on contradictions, ambiguities, misquotations and/or selective use of the orthodox immunisation literature.
Madam Speaker, this was outlined in a letter in today's Canberra Times from Dr Alex Proudfoot, the principal medical adviser at the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Dr Proudfoot made the observation that "the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research was inclined to rely on misquotation". Homoeopathic immunisation has been subjected to scientific scrutiny and is not acceptable as an alternative to the immunisation schedule recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. There are several homoeopathic so-called vaccines available in Australia. In three studies none of these substances were found to be vaccines against a disease on the current childhood immunisation schedule.
Madam Speaker, the opponents of the pertussis component of DTP - diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, or triple antigen - vaccine make selective use of the scientific literature to argue the dangers of this vaccine. Scaremongering, such as the arguments that SIDS is caused by immunisation, means that some health care workers and some members of the general public continue to hold unfounded fears regarding the whooping cough vaccine. Refusal to immunise children carries a serious risk from the complication of the disease. Inadequately immunised one-year-old children have more than a one-in-six chance of developing whooping cough before the age of 10 years. In infants less than six months of age one in 200 cases die from whooping cough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .