Archive

The debate about the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) triple vaccine is still raging. There have been many column inches dedicated to the conflicting research findings, the issues raised and government responses.

However, it is not just parents who may have to consider the research; it also affects social care workers who work with children and families. You may be placed in a dilemma: do you follow government guidance or do you consider the research and make up your own mind? If you disagree with the Department of Health, do you say so? What line does your employing authority take?


The message from the advisers at the Department of Health is that the triple MMR jabs are safe. They are expressing concerns about the low level of take-up in some areas. They say that this is placing all children at risk, as an epidemic may arise resulting in deaths and disability. This is backed by a publicity campaign to encourage parents to immunise their children. The government is not currently responding to the demand for single vaccine doses.

However, the Autism Research Campaign for Health (Arch) has called on the government to drop all publicity that claims MMR to be "indisputably" safe. Arch cites a study by John O'Leary, a professor at Trinity College, Dublin, which found the MMR strain of measles in the guts of 12 autistic children who had received the triple vaccine. Arch says the research raises "important questions" about the safety of the triple vaccine and calls on the government to commission a new study to investigate any links between MMR, autism and bowel disease, and demands single jabs to be made available on the NHS to parents who want them.

The research conflicts with a study published in June, which found no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease. The Irish results were based on samples from a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield, which found possible links between the MMR jab and developmental disorders in 12 children with bowel symptoms. David Salisbury, the principal medical officer with the NHS, said that it was unable to assess O'Leary's results until they were published, and it has not received a response to a request for information about the research.¹

Jackie Fletcher, of immunisation pressure group Jabs, said new research was "highly significant". Jabs has been raising concerns since issues about the safety of the vaccine were first raised in 1994. Jabs is now claiming that the government has consistently refused to take meaningful research seriously and always criticises the presenting researcher.


The controversy is significant for social care workers. Parents are worried about having their children immunised with the triple MMR vaccine and may ask social care workers for advice. Does a social worker say, "Well, I haven't had mine done"? The local authority is the corporate parent for looked-after children. Does a social worker, who has not had their own child immunised, go ahead and arrange for a looked-after child to have the jab? Is a social worker obliged to follow government advice, if parents, with whom the local authority shares parental responsibility, say they are not sure whether their child should immunised. Is the social worker obliged to persuade them? Should local authorities pay for the single vaccine doses?

The research in this area is important for social care workers as it raises ethical issues as well as simply an analysis of the research findings. It may be important to debate the practice issues further.

Gaynor Wingham is director of the Professional Independents Consultancy.

¹ For more information on MMR research go to: www.doh.gov.uk/mmr or www.vaccinationnews.com or www.jabs.org.uk