Editorial: More heat than light in vaccination debate

Dr Lance O'Sullivan

There has been more heat than light in the vaccination 'debate' thus far.

All one can say with reasonable certainty is that existing prejudices/convictions have been confirmed - those who believe vaccination causes autism will believe they have been vindicated, while those who argue its value to the individual and society as a whole are in no doubt that the critics are whacko.

That despite the ease with which both schools of thought chuck about research results and statistics, although the latter, as in every internet-sourced argument, need to be taken with a shaker of salt. At least in terms of this issue, whatever some people say, freedom of speech is not in peril in this country.

One thing we can be reasonably sure of is that some previously healthy children who are described as victims of vaccination are nothing of the sort. Another is that Dr Lance O'Sullivan has become the victim, at least to some degree, of exaggeration, and perhaps the first small signs of falling to the tall poppy syndrome.

Dr O'Sullivan, whether or not he was foolish to make his views publicly known without seeing the film Vaxxed, has been unfairly portrayed by some.

The promoter of the film told the Northland Age that he had threatened to "hunt down" those who took their seats at Te Ahu to watch the film, when by her own evidence he did nothing of the sort. He did threaten, if that's the right word, to "call out" health professionals in the audience, but that's not quite the same as hunting them down.

Nor is it entirely fair to expect Dr O'Sullivan, or any health professional for that matter, to prevaricate on any matter pertaining to their field of expertise. Their patients look to them for advice, and are entitled to expect them to have an informed opinion.

When needs must they have a right, even a duty, to present that opinion forcefully. It's a bit rich to lambast the man for doing that because his expert opinion does not match that of the critics.

It has been suggested by some that the opponents of vaccination are only free to maintain their stance because the great majority accept the need for their children to be vaccinated, thereby giving them significant protection.

If that were not the case, they say, the childhood diseases that most are immunised against would be running rampant, presenting a much greater threat to children's health and wellbeing than vaccination ever will.

For most it's a matter of who we trust, but it's difficult to believe that the risks of vaccination are as horrific as some would have them. And when it comes to Lance O'Sullivan, those who do not like what he's saying and/or don't appreciate his style of delivery are entitled, as ever, to ignore him.

We still live in a free country, free to act as our conscience, and hopefully intelligence, tells us we should.

We might be grateful though that we in live in a community where at least one medic is passionate about his calling and prepared to stand up and be counted.

Mind you, when it comes to the world we are leaving to our grandchildren, vaccination might be the least of our worries. The evidence that the current decision-making generations are making a hash of their legacy is mounting on a daily basis.

Some of the cloud cuckoo brigade at least offer some entertainment value, like the Otago Regional Council's banning of the term Gypsy Day, June 1, when sharemilkers around the land traditionally move their herds from one farm to another. That term, apparently, is offensive to the Romany people, or at least could be. Better safe than sorry. In the Deep South it is now to be known as Mooving Day.

Gypsies around the world must be delighted to know that an outfit they have never heard of is concerned about their finer feelings. All the more mooving, perhaps, given the tensions that their lifestyle still generates, at least in England, whose status as the spiritual home of political correctness does not yet seem to have benefited this particular racial minority.

Of more concern are those organisations that have a real ability to shape our society, like the Ministry of Education. (Don't expect anything of the teacher unions. They are exactly that, trade unions, whose sole raison d'etre is to protect the interests of their members, not the children they teach).

It is difficult to think of one ministry/Minister-led change to our education system of late that has actually been to the benefit of children, and the latest revelation isn't likely to change that. It seems that changes have been/are being made to the Education Act to address that unvexed issue of seclusion and restraint.

Once upon a time detention was the fate of those dastardly individuals who hadn't done their homework, but 'time out' was unheard of.

Mind you, in those days children didn't assault their teachers or other children, smash up their classrooms or generally display a gross lack of self-control.

The Ministry of Education insists that the resources it provides to schools to deal with uncontrollable children are adequate, despite evidence to the contrary, but that's by the bye.

The Act now states, or soon will, that school may still impose time out - as long as the child voluntarily takes himself to an "acceptable space" to calm down, or is prompted by a teacher to do so. The child must be aware that he is free to "exit the space".

Te Tai Tokerau Principal's Association president Pat Newman, who would know more about child psychology than the average civil servant, is not encouraged by this. He suspects that children will get wind of it, finally removing the last vestige of authority that teachers possess to impose their will.

One assumes that teachers impose their will, in whatever circumstances, in the best interests of their pupils. Otherwise they should not be teaching.

This should not come as a surprise.

Politicians have deprived parents of most if not all effective means of disciplining their children, and presumably this new time out rule will also apply at home.

Otherwise the parent would be guilty of kidnapping, or at least illegally restraining the child, wouldn't they?

Was there really so much wrong with the old regime, where children were (generally) taught, from the beginning, to respect authority in all its manifestations? When they were taught to respect themselves, others, and particularly their elders? Is what we have now, an often palpable lack of respect for anyone and anything, better than that?

More to the point, are kids who can now snub their noses at their teachers, and their parents, getting a fair go? Are they more likely to grow up happy and fulfilled than their parents and grandparents? Does the lack of discipline that we see now lay the foundation for a generational lack of resilience?

An inability to deal with life's slings and arrows? Is this why some children crumble at the first obstacle? Is this why some commit suicide?

We are still being told that kids need boundaries, but parents and others in authority are losing, or have lost, the ability to enforce boundaries that were once unquestioned.

That is a far greater threat to the health, wealth and happiness of coming generations than the potential for harm from vaccination against the measles.