BBC misses the point on anti-vax

An article on the BBC News site today reports on a minor celebrity who is making a stir with a stance against vaccination. The celebrity is so minor that the author readily admits that we might not have heard of her. Nevertheless, make-up and tattoo guru Kat Von D says that her forthcoming child will not be vaccinated.

The story centres on Kat Von D’s Instagram post, and it’s worth analysing this. She says:

My husband @prayers and I are NOT anti-vaxxers.
We are not against vaccines. Just because we have hesitancies and valid concerns about injecting our baby with specific chemicals and toxins does not mean we are anti anything.

Isn’t the use of the words “chemicals and toxins” a bit of a give-away? This is the lexicon of the anti-science movement. Anyway, let me address Kat’s points in order:

1. “Do my research” does not mean trawling the web until you find inflammatory sites that reinforce your prejudices.
2. ” There are plenty of studies that show some vaccinations can work wonders. And there are also studies that show some people [including mothers, and babies] may be more susceptible to vaccine injuries more than others”. False balance. The risk:benefit ratio is very firmly in favour of vaccines.
3. “It’s unfair for anyone to expect me [or any parent] to take the word of the pharmaceutical companies….”. We don’t, we are guided by independent bodies such as WHO, Cochrane, and national bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control in the US.
4. “Our personal medical records are no one’s business…” Excuse me? Who went public with this in the first place?
5. “I hope you would try and understand that this is our first child together, and we are simply just trying our best”. Trying your best would be using the best evidence for decisions. You are not.

She concludes by turning off comments. Nothing like lobbing a grenade and running away to create a stir. Now let me return to the BBC piece. It’s very heartening to see the level of reaction against Kat’s silly statements. But the author missed a trick with this bit:

But in recent days some had praised her for speaking out – asserting her, and their right, to choose how they raise their children.

Parents do not own their children. They do not have the right to make decisions that are potentially harmful to their children. This is the central ethical point of the story that the BBC has totally missed. The article cites another parent Gina Frattini who says:

We’re bringing our children into this world, and we’re trying to do the absolute best we can with the information we have and the information we’re given.

Like Kat Von D, no Gina you are not. You have not a shred of excuse for not having all the right information – it’s available to anyone. You have undoubtedly been told that vaccination is on balance overwhelmingly beneficial, but you choose to ignore it. Gina reinforces this error with:

It’s her uterus, it’s her body, it’s her child – it’s their child together and it’s 110% her choice”.

Apart from her lack of numeracy, Gina is wrong again. The child has rights. It has nothing to do with the mother’s health.

Some will say that I am being too harsh, as the article is well balanced, giving ample coverage to pro-vaccination arguments. But missing the central ethical point is I think inexcusable.