Vaccination

Parental refusal of vaccination has been increasing in recent years. Allegations have been raised that vaccination may lead to autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), multiple sclerosis (MS), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow) and schizophrenia among other ailments. Do any of these claims stand up to empirical evidence? No. There has been no correlation in any of these disease to studies sampling children who were vaccinated against those whose parents refused for them to be vaccinated. Indeed diagnosis of autism has increased despite rejection of vaccinations. The rates of measles, mumps, pertussis and tetanus are rising and unsurprisingly in the populations of unvaccinated children.

There are several questions that we should consider about vaccinating our children. Are side-effects of vaccination adequate when compared to the risks of contracting the illness later in life? This is the most easily argued case for refusal of vaccination, perhaps an individual feels that a risk of a potentially contracting fatal infectious disease later in life is less than the risk of any side-effects to the vaccine. I am disinclined to agree but this is a judgement of opinion, not of fact. However, this raises the question of proxy in medicine as well. Is the parent always the best person to determine what the best decision for the child is as the child cannot make a decision to the previous question? I would be inclined to believe that the parent who refuses vaccination may not have the child's best interest in mind and instead their own but once again I cannot object as this is a judgement of opinion.

The question, however, that does allow a definite answer concerns whether vaccination only affect the child? If vaccination only endangers the child to a possible later infection then vaccination should be the decision of the parents. Vaccination does not. It places risks upon all others with compromised or weak immune systems. The elderly, the young and those with immunodeficiency diseases are all susceptible to any child who may have contracted a disease easily prevented by immunization regardless of whether the other individual may have been vaccinated or not. Failing to vaccinate can cause the death and suffering of many, this cost far outweighs any cost of adverse reactions to the child.

When we consider vaccinating our children we have two choices: either we accept the possibility of reactions to vaccines and attempt to protect the child and those around her through immunizations despite their risks or we act selfishly and risk both the child and those around her with compromised immune systems. I hope that we are brave enough to all choose the former.

Overusing antibiotics

If you enter Reynold’s Hall on the campus of Missouri Southern State University you are likely to see gallon-sized dispensers of hand sanitizer and the restrooms are outfitted with antibacterial soaps. Indeed it is difficult to find non-antibiotic soaps or detergents in most locations. With the scare from H1N1 hand sanitizers can be seen in the entrances of retail outlets and restaurants. One must also note the extent to which antibiotics are prescribed for minor ailments by physicians and the misuse of antibiotics by patients; however, the medical industry is not the sole problem with the emergence of stronger strains of bacteria. An estimate by the UCS suggests that nearly 70% of all antibiotics in the United States are given to healthy livestock including pigs, cattle and poultry (it is suggested that this either counteracts or gives the illusion to counteract unsanitary conditions related with industrial agriculture.

There is a great cost to this excessive use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. A recent survey by bioMerieu and a study by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine highlight this cost. According to bioMerieu, sepsis (fatal between 20% and 35% of cases) and septic shock (fatal in 40% to 60% of cases) are increasing in prevalence and are being diagnosed in much younger patients. From an economical perspective this has led to an increase of $5 billion per annum. The University of Pennsylvania recently illustrated that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics over extended periods of time can lead to dangerous secondary infections by displacing the balance between the immune system and beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract preventing the bacteria from essentially priming the immune system to respond to other more potent infections.

Infections are a societal problem and have beset human civilizations since their foundations. With many breakthroughs in technology due to human ingenuity costs of bacterial infection were incurred (consider the spread of syphilis, or Treponema pallidum to Europe with the introduction of the boat to the new world or the invention and implementation of air conditioning units which foster an environment conducive to Legionella pneumophila, the bacteria responsible for a nationwide scare during the United States bicentennial). In recent years we have become paranoid. We are shown cases of avian flu, H1N1, MRSA and VRSA and we proceed to wash and bathe with antibiotics and spray or wipe antibiotics on our counters and tabletops and in doing so we are breeding the very organisms we fear. Killing an advertised 99.9% of all bacteria on surfaces we leave 0.1% remaining that are possibly resistant to antibiotics.

What is my recommendation? Leave antibacterial soaps and other products for places they are needed: medical and veterinary facilities. Overuse of antibiotics that stems from our fears of being ill has created a cycle leading to the growth of more dangerous organisms, a growth so quick that quantum effects have been implicated in its mechanism. The next time you hear a news article or see a television report of the dangers of any infection consider that a study by the University College Hospital, London found that simple hand washing was more effective in preventing the spread of bacteria than isolation.