MMR Vaccine Row Doctor ‘Had Limited Experience of Medical Ethics on Young’
The doctor at the centre of the MMR vaccine row had limited experience of the medical ethics surrounding paediatrics, a disciplinary hearing heard yesterday.
Dr Andrew Wakefield, 51, had “no training and extremely limited experience” in requesting parental consent for samples taken from children, General Medical Council (GMC) lawyers said.
He had no formal paediatric qualifications and, prior to 1996, had not been involved in any clinical research on children, the hearing was told.
The father-of-four, who now lives and works in the US, appeared before the GMC’s fitness to practise panel in central London, where he was cross-examined by GMC lawyers.
Dr Wakefield sparked controversy in the late 1990s when he said he believed he had uncovered a link between the MMR jab, bowel disease and autism.
His MMR research, published in medical journal The Lancet, caused a large drop in the number of children given the triple jab for measles, mumps and rubella. MMR coverage fell to a low of 80 per cent, well below the recommended 95 per cent, leading the Government and autism experts to spend years trying to dispel the findings of the study.
Dr Wakefield is charged with serious professional misconduct alongside professors John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch. They all deny the charges.
The central allegations against the men relate to investigations for their study on 12 youngsters with bowel disorders carried out between 1996 and 1998.
At the time all three doctors were employed at the Royal Free Hospital medical school in London, with honorary clinical contracts at the Royal Free Hospital.
Sally Smith QC, for the GMC, questioned Dr Wakefield about the process of receiving parental consent before obtaining samples from patients to be used for testing.
She said: “The question of how a clinician who is a paediatrician deals with a child who is the patient and with the parent who, nine times out of 10 I think we all agree, is loving, responsible, often absolutely desperate; that’s a difficult dilemma for a treating doctor, don’t you agree?”
Dr Wakefield replied: “It certainly can be, yes.”
Ms Smith added: “It is one for which you had no training and extremely limited experience.”
Dr Wakefield replied: “Surgery does not discriminate between paediatrics and adults in a general hospital environment.” He added that he had considerable experience in that area.
Dr Wakefield was repeatedly questioned about the guidelines and ethics surrounding treatment of children.
He admitted that he was not aware of “detailed guidance” on the subject provided by the British Paediatric Association.
Ms Smith said: “One of the reasons, doctor, why documents of this kind from the British Paediatric Association would not have come across your radar would be because you have no paediatric qualifications and so you are not a member of that association. Is that correct?”
Dr Wakefield replied: “Correct.”
He admitted that before 1996, apart from publishing a case report, he had not been involved in any clinical research on children.
Last summer the GMC heard that vulnerable children were subjected to “inappropriate and invasive” tests by the doctors.
The hearing continues on Monday.
(c) 2008 Yorkshire Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.