Editorial: An issue too sensitive for point-scoring

The job of an MP such as National's Tony Ryall is to hold ministers and officials to account. To expose errors, or even the possibility of error, is a public responsibility as well as a political opportunity.

Sometimes, though, responsibility should temper an MP's opportunism. This week's discussion of the meningococcal B vaccine was one of those times.

Concern was raised last weekend when the vaccine administered to a million New Zealand children in the past few years was said to be the subject of studies into a possible link with a rare condition, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), commonly called chronic fatigue syndrome. ME had been found in 70 per cent of people who took part in trials in Norway.

This news must have been alarming for parents who put their child through the course of inoculations, not least because they heard New Zealand is the only country to have taken this vaccine in a mass immunisation programme.

The programme director, Dr Jane O'Halloran, was able to assure them the vaccine used in this country was not the same as the one used in the Norwegian trials, which was its "parent".

She said the Ministry of Health was maintaining a close interest in the Norwegian trials. She understood the incidence of ME in the age group given the vaccine was no higher than in those born before or after it, but was waiting for that to be confirmed. No cases of ME had been recorded among the "adverse events" after the New Zealand programme.

We heard more about those "adverse events" in Parliament a day or two later. Mr Ryall, National's spokesman on health, questioned Health Minister Pete Hodgson about a girl who developed a blood disorder after the vaccination.

Mr Hodgson, who had the previous week denied there had been adverse reactions, was caught unaware. But he was rescued by the ACC Minister, Ruth Dyson, who gave details of the 33 claims Mr Ryall said had been made to ACC about adverse reactions attributed to the vaccine, and said they were the kind of reactions that could occur after any injection. It was a "disgrace" for Mr Ryall to insinuate otherwise, she said.

He came in for even stronger criticism from a political ally, Act's Heather Roy, who was "appalled' that he should try to link ACC claims to the vaccine. "This attempt to discredit the Government serves only to undermine public confidence in a safe and effective vaccine that saves children's lives," she said.

Mrs Roy said she had her own children vaccinated after evaluating the arguments for and against the programme.

The vehemence of her criticism of Mr Ryall probably reflects the feelings of many parents who took the step to try to protect their children from an epidemic of a debilitating disease.

The criticism of Mr Ryall may be a trifling unfair - on the face of it, the ACC claim raised a reasonable question and the fact that the question received a comforting answer should not discredit it.

But the disgust he has aroused on both sides of the House should be a warning to all MPs that some subjects are too alarming to the public be treated with anything less than extreme caution. The point Mr Ryall sought to score on the Health Minister was nothing to the political damage he has suffered for playing fast and loose with the public interest.

The MENZB vaccine has been given to 80 per cent of those between the ages of 6 weeks and 19 years. The major concern, properly expressed by MPs such as Sue Kedgley, is whether it had had sufficient trials before it was administered to the population.

It was a drastic response to a fearful disease. It is not immune to criticism, but it is to be handled with care.