HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Rapid Response to:

Original Research: David H. Wallis, Jennifer L. Chin, Denise K. C. Sur, and Michael Y. Lee Increasing Rates of Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Multisite Interventional Study J Am Board Fam Med 2006; 19: 345-349 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

Rapid Response: Submit a response to this article

Responses published:

Flu Vaccine legal concerns

Raymond J Zimmerman   (5 July 2006)

Flu Vaccine legal concerns 5 July 2006
Raymond J Zimmerman, family practice physician Centra, private practice Send response to journal: Re: Flu Vaccine legal concerns zimmerman20{at}hotmail.com Raymond J Zimmerman	6-30-06 Greatest reason for lack of influenza (or any vaccination) during pregnancy is the fear that ANY intervention during pregnancy could be blamed for fetal/neonatal abnormailities later on. Even if the medical literature showed that the potential rate of complication is 1 in 100,000, if anything was abnormal, a slick attorney could convince a court the vaccine (and the providing physician) bears some responsibity. Guillen- Barre may have an incidence of 1 in 10,1000 for general population flu vaccine recipients; imagine the legal disaster if a prime of life woman developed this complication during an otherwise normal pregnancy! I think that if the CDC wants high rates of flu vaccination during pregmnancy, then the CDC should also take responsibility for any consequences the treatment may engender; or provide a "totally safe" vaccine as an alternative solution. Until we as a society come to some agreement of "level of acceptable risk" with an intervention (or level of risk WITHOUT the intervention), it seems prudent to avoid the ire if the legal system as much as possible.