Page 2533 - Week 08 - Thursday, 19 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (3.43): Madam Speaker, I support the thrust of the topic of the matter of public importance debate today about the importance for community and individual health of universal vaccination and immunisation programs in preventing the spread of disease and maintaining public health. I congratulate Mrs Grassby for raising this issue today. I concur with Mr Berry; it is a considerable matter of public importance.
I should inform members that I have had some direct involvement in consideration of this issue over some years. I was an Australian Council of State School Organisations representative to the Bicentennial Measles Committee in 1988 and I discussed these issues at length with my fellow members at meetings held throughout the year. I believe very strongly that vaccination and immunisation programs need to be vigorously promoted in the community, but I also believe that they should occur in an informed way, and I appreciate the Minister for Health's comments about the importance of accurate information being provided about immunisation and vaccination programs.
A message which recommends vaccination and immunisation as a matter of course without mentioning any possible adverse reaction to vaccination, in the occasional circumstances where it does occur, I believe is misinformed. What we need to do is to inform parents as accurately as possible of exactly what the potential benefits and risks are. If parents vaccinate their children believing that nothing can go wrong and their children suffer in some way they pay, at times, a devastating cost for their original lack of accurate information. I believe that we will encourage more parents to vaccinate their children if the facts about the benefits and potential risks are accurately presented. I understand that this is an issue at present, with recent studies indicating that parents are vaccinating their children less often than has been the case in the past.
I now wish to recount a personal experience which concerns my son when he was a small baby. Because of the history of allergies in my own family I was cautious in my approach to vaccination. Where I was unsure whether vaccinations would produce adverse reactions I took the time to consult with my family doctor before I proceeded. In the case of the triple antigen vaccine, which Mr Berry and Mrs Grassby have referred to, a test dose was administered to my son, a test dose being a proportion of the full dose of the vaccine. He reacted to that test dose and, as a consequence, was not immunised against whooping cough but only against diphtheria and tetanus. Obviously there could have been a risk if my son had later been exposed to whooping cough, but I knew what the risks were and I was able to take precautions when he was a small child, when contact with whooping cough is most dangerous. As members would be largely aware, the danger from the risk of contracting whooping cough is minimised after about four years of age. Madam Speaker, an informed decision had been taken and the potential benefits and risks had been adequately assessed. I might add that in all other instances full vaccination for my son has been perfectly okay.
Madam Speaker, I do not want others to think I am opposed in any way to vaccination and immunisation per se. However, I do urge that caution be exercised in terms of our approach to this issue, and that completely accurate and factual information about the benefits and risks involved should always be presented, to enable people to make informed decisions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .