Weather
Mum-to-be given swine flu jab she’d asked NOT to have (From Bridport and Lyme Regis News)
Contact the Bridport News with your stories, pictures and video footage. Send us an email
Mum-to-be given swine flu jab she’d asked NOT to have
7:00am Friday 11th December 2009
AN INVESTIGATION is under way after a mother-to-be was given a swine flu jab that she had expressly said she did not want.
Annaleaze Wilkinson-Light, of Oakdale in Poole, had agreed to have a jab but did not want the usual single-dose Pandemrix vaccine because she was concerned that it includes a preservative containing a small amount of mercury.
Her own GP was not giving the alternative vaccine, which involves two doses three weeks apart, so she was sent to Boscombe and Springbourne Health Centre.
Miss Wilkinson-Light’s GP sent a letter to the health centre and she went there to have the jab last Saturday.
“I said my doctor had sent a letter, but reception couldn’t find it and said the doctor must have it,” she said. “I signed the forms and the doctor called me in.
“I asked if he had the letter from my GP. He said: ‘You don’t need a letter’. I told him I was 15 weeks pregnant. He assured me it was going to be fine and I got injected.
“Afterwards, I asked if I needed to book an appointment to come back in three weeks. He said: ‘You don’t need another injection’.”
Miss Wilkinson-Light claims the doctor told her the centre only gave the double-dose vaccine, Celvapan, to people who were allergic to eggs.
“He stood there and reassured me that Pandemrix was OK. I walked out, grabbed my daughter and partner and left. I was in absolute bits because I didn’t want it.
“My choice had been taken away from me because he didn’t read the letter. I thought it was so wrong and shouldn’t have happened.”
After contacting the health centre, Miss Wilkinson-Light says she had a verbal apology from the doctor.
“I felt really upset because I spent so long trying to decide whether to have the vaccination and there was so much to go through to get Celvapan,” she said.
“I wouldn’t have had the Pandemrix and I’m still worried because I’ve got it in my system. The life inside you is so special and you just want to protect it.”
Dr Adrian Dawson, director of public health for Bournemouth and Poole, said: “We are sorry that this incident has caused concern to Miss Wilkinson-Light.
“We are undertaking an investigation into the circumstances around this issue and will be contacting her shortly with the outcome of this.
“We want to reassure all pregnant women that the widely-used Pandemrix flu vaccine is safe for them, with the majority of pregnant women having had this vaccine.
“As only one dose is required, women are protected immediately, and do not have to wait to receive a second dose.
“We do encourage women to have the vaccine to prevent potential complications should they contract the swine flu virus.
“However, anyone with any concerns should contact their GP in the first instance.”
More News stories
Your Say Your Bridport
Was Charlie, says...
8:32am Fri 11 Dec 09
borednow, Christchurch says...
9:21am Fri 11 Dec 09
Tripod, Poole says...
9:47am Fri 11 Dec 09
rainbowkisses, Bournemouth says...
9:52am Fri 11 Dec 09
Was Charlie, says...
9:55am Fri 11 Dec 09
Tripod wrote:Are you able to pay for the swine flu jab? I know you can for seasonal flu, but haven't heard that you can for swine flu.
If you want a choice, pay for it privately.
In any case, you get choice on the NHS - you don't get dictated to, or you shouldn't. If you haven't been given choice, then I suggest you change whoever provides your health care.
Duckorange, Wyke Regis says...
10:39am Fri 11 Dec 09
The mercury concerns are whipped up by a tabloid press more interested in outrage than actual science.
See also: MMR
bofors, bournemouth says...
10:41am Fri 11 Dec 09
laura12345, norfolk says...
11:09am Fri 11 Dec 09
PokesdownMark, Bournemouth says...
12:16pm Fri 11 Dec 09
So my point is not with the choice itself. But with the reporting of a situation involving that choice.
Because the choice made was based on mistaken beliefs, there should have been more balance in the story. Otherwise readers may take on those mistaken beliefs for themselves. This is how mistaken beliefs spread. This is how mistaken beliefs have, in the past, spread. Its human nature to exagerate small risks when the nature of those risks are not understood. This made great sense when we are alone on a dark night in the savanna. But usually does not make nearly as much sense here in the 21st century.
Children have died because of mistaken beliefs in vaccines. Vaccines do not always cause an immune response in the recipient. So a vital additional protection comes from herd immunity. Charming term but very well worth understanding. So if mistaken beliefs about vaccinations are not strongly challenged people can, and have, died as a result.
I wish the media was more aware of this. I would have thought that the lessons from the MMR fiasco were still ringing loud and clear.
AKKA, Poole says...
12:20pm Fri 11 Dec 09
gudmenrmist, wimborne says...
3:51pm Fri 11 Dec 09
ask the Dr's on £2,000 a week already moaning that £12 a jab on top ain't enough.
The lady had a choice that was denied her.
It will be explained thus regrettable error lesson's have been learnt blah blah blah etc etc.
Was Charlie, says...
6:45pm Fri 11 Dec 09
Doesn't natter whether or not the beliefs were mistaken - she is free to choose, and that choice was ignored. Fact.
I choose not to wear green because my family has always believed it to be unlucky. Irrational - probably - but still my choice and my right to choose just as his lady had the right to choose.
PokesdownMark, Bournemouth says...
8:54pm Fri 11 Dec 09
Was Charlie wrote:Sorry but it really does matter. Because in the case of vaccines the choice of an individual has an affect on the ability of the general public to avoid catching the disease. Like I say, you have to grasp the full consequences of Herd Immunity to appreciate that this is not just a simple case of personal preference. Like colour.
<quote>Because the choice made was based on mistaken beliefs, there should have been more balance in the story.</quote>
Doesn't natter whether or not the beliefs were mistaken - she is free to choose, and that choice was ignored. Fact.
I choose not to wear green because my family has always believed it to be unlucky. Irrational - probably - but still my choice and my right to choose just as his lady had the right to choose.
Its actually fairly unique. Because there are not too many other silly decisions that seem innocuous but are not. Maybe driving after a modest amount of alcohol would be an example? Not over the limit but near to it. That would be a personal choice that would put others at very slight, but potentially serious increased risk. I see the unchallenged representation (in the media) of vaccination fears as being like someone promoting this practice. But without anyone pointing out how dumb it is.
dancingdog, Bournemouth says...
8:55pm Fri 11 Dec 09
borednow, Christchurch says...
11:48pm Fri 11 Dec 09
Was Charlie, says...
8:36am Sat 12 Dec 09
Let's medicate the masses then - Big Brother is alive and well!
PokesdownMark, Bournemouth says...
10:29am Sat 12 Dec 09
Was Charlie wrote:Well Charlie medicate and vaccinate are two very different things. A medicine involves prolonged exposure to repeated doses of a substance that must be present to have a chemical affect. A vaccine is a one shot dose that teaches your immune system to recognise a virus in the future.
Pokesdown Mark:
Let's medicate the masses then - Big Brother is alive and well!
But more significant is that a medicine treats someone who is already ill. A vaccine prevents someone getting ill.
But EVEN more significant, a vaccine in one person prevents that person becoming a virus factory that presents a health risk to others.
PokesdownMark, Bournemouth says...
10:53am Sat 12 Dec 09
borednow wrote:I think I already said that I thought her wishes should have been respected. My whole point is about the misrepresentation of the risks of vaccines. And you have provided a classic example by claiming that the WHO have made that recommendation you state. Saying such a thing is really only sensible if you have yourself read the recommendation directly from the WHO themselves. If you could provide the link to the recommendation I would be most grateful. It will be on their website - www.who.int.
PokesdownMark - I absolutely agree with you on the principles of herd immunity and the role of the press in kicking up the massive fiasco that was the MMR scare - my point is that there are two effective vaccines available, and this lady expressed her desire to receive the version of the vaccine that does not contain an adjuvant that is recommended by the WHO not to be given to pregnant women. In this particular case Annaleaze was willing to receive the vaccine, but her wishes were ignored and that is the issue that I have a problem with.
By the way, I could not find it. Lots of statements saying the opposite mind you.
poolebabe, poole says...
11:06am Sat 12 Dec 09
PokesdownMark wrote:PokesdownMark, I think people don't understand your valid points. I do agree with you. Lives are at risk because people are making choices based on media scaremongering. I have been in a hospital children's ward and seen the damage done by so called choice. If only people realised the consequences before.
Was Charlie wrote: Pokesdown Mark: Let's medicate the masses then - Big Brother is alive and well!Well Charlie medicate and vaccinate are two very different things. A medicine involves prolonged exposure to repeated doses of a substance that must be present to have a chemical affect. A vaccine is a one shot dose that teaches your immune system to recognise a virus in the future. But more significant is that a medicine treats someone who is already ill. A vaccine prevents someone getting ill. But EVEN more significant, a vaccine in one person prevents that person becoming a virus factory that presents a health risk to others.
.
The Dr surgery was wrong. No doubt about it, but the benefits of the vacine the lady recieved, would certainly outwiegh any very minimal risks (remember there are risks with any treatment). People need to keep perspective. For all this lady knows, the vacine she has just had, could have saved her life and the life of her child. It's something she will never now know, but is possible.
.
Years ago there was no choice, these days it seems people make choices just because they can, not because they should. Sorry if that offends, but there are far too many people on their high horses, jumping on any bandwagon, bleating on about "risks" and not keeping perspective on benefits.
.
For the record, I have a child with Autism. All of my children had all of their vaccines and if the choice was presented to me again, they would have the jabs, no doubt about it. Scaremongering is dangerous.
Was Charlie, says...
5:51pm Sat 12 Dec 09
lisaleesussex, angmering says...
10:54pm Sun 13 Dec 09
gilljojo, says...
9:51pm Wed 23 Dec 09
The NHS leaflet was routinely sent to me, and even that leaflet did not say it was safe for the baby. Under the heading "Is this vaccine safe for my baby" it did not say yes! It said, we've tested a similar vaccine and that was fine.
Well that's not good enough!
If I was Annaleaze I'd want a hell of a lot better than an apology.
MOTHER-TO-BE: Annaleaze Wilkinson-Light
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
PokesdownMark, Bournemouth says...
7:30am Fri 11 Dec 09
There is a very small, but very vocal minority of anti-vaccination folks on the internet. So far they have not come up with any useful evidence that their concerns are justified despite a lot of trying over many years. It is a shame the echo could not produce a balanced story with some expert opinion explaining why this woman's fears were not justified. Rather than produce a story that may alarm readers in a similar situation and send them off into the realm of the paranoid blogs.