The purposefully misnamed " Australian Vaccination Network " ( AVN ) has been a thorn in the side of the medical profession as it tries to persuade parents to refuse vaccinating their children against childhood diseases. Disease control requires a high level of acceptance to confer immunity and vaccination levels in Australia have dropped to a point where this risk level has risen.
AVN claims that vaccinations are a pathway for other deadly diseases. While it is true that any medical procedure has a slight risk factor, the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of the benefits that vaccination confer. Unfortunately, some parents confuse the rantings of this splinter group as a legitimate medical response - and put their children at risk by refusing the needle.
Now AVN have set their sights on Tetanus vaccinations. They claim on their Facebook web page that " putting Tea Tree oil on the wound " prevents Tetanus and " if the wound bleeds you can not catch the disease ". It also suggests that those lacking the risk factors of " age, diabetes and smoking " are unlikely to catch Tetanus.
Posts from those that disagree - including medical people - are removed and no alternative views are allowed. There is a risk that some people will think that this is official medical knowledge - and Tetanus is an agonising disease that is fatal in some cases.
It raises the question of " free speech " as a right, balanced against the obligations that go with it. Someone famously stated many years ago that free speech did not extend to shouting " fire " inside a crowded theatre. While publishing a theory under ones own name may be acceptable because no qualification is claimed, to publish under an official sounding title is an entirely different matter,
Claiming medical knowledge that is unproven could be considered a "Public Mischief ". If it causes someone to defer medical intervention that leads to a loss of life that must attract a degree of liability under the law. Surely, if this is done knowingly - it could come under the definition of " manslaughter " !
Perhaps what is needed is a law change. It should be made mandatory for anyone giving advice on a medical matter to clearly identify what - if any - qualifications they hold on that subject.
As things stand, there is no present requirement to do so and many such claims are carefully camouflaged behind what seems to be an official sounding title of substance.
Time to drag the exponents of " quackery " - kicking and screaming - into the public domain !
No comments:
Post a Comment