16.11.2012 Views

PhD Thesis - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

PhD Thesis - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

PhD Thesis - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

immunisation, particularly after some <strong>of</strong> the earlier inactivated vaccines had<br />

demonstrated high reaction rates. 31 By 1968 the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Health felt confident<br />

enough to go ahead with a live attenuated vaccine which they felt minimised side-<br />

effects and gave long-term immunity. <strong>The</strong> vaccine made by Burroughs-Wellcome,<br />

called Wellcovax, was the vaccine <strong>of</strong> choice. Public acceptance was initially high,<br />

with approximately 800,000 doses administered in the first year. 32 Unfortunately, the<br />

confidence exhibited by the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Health was misplaced, as the vaccine had to<br />

be recalled after the death <strong>of</strong> a baby from encephalitis and complications in two other<br />

children. 33 Further cases <strong>of</strong> measles encephalitis brought on by the vaccine were<br />

reported in the following weeks. 34 <strong>The</strong> immunisation programme was continued<br />

using the Glaxo Laboratories vaccine made from a different strain but due to the<br />

shortage in supply it was restricted to certain categories <strong>of</strong> susceptible children. 35<br />

This had implications for the New Zealand measles vaccine programme as the<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Health had chosen to use Wellcovax.<br />

In New Zealand the Epidemiology Advisory Committee (EAC) had been considering<br />

the introduction <strong>of</strong> the measles vaccine since 1963, but, like Britain, did not feel able<br />

to recommend a vaccine that it did not feel was entirely proven to its satisfaction. In<br />

March 1967 the EAC had suggested that children at special risk should be immunised<br />

by their family doctor if it was deemed necessary, although it was still not prepared to<br />

recommend the vaccine for general use. 36 <strong>The</strong> ‘cautious approach’ adopted by the<br />

EAC was felt to be justified until trials had determined the safety <strong>of</strong> both live and<br />

killed vaccines. <strong>The</strong>refore it was not until March 1968 that the EAC felt able to<br />

recommend general use <strong>of</strong> the measles vaccine. 37<br />

31 ibid.<br />

32 A. Cliff, P. Haggett, M. Smallman-Raynor, Measles. A Historical Geography, p.253.<br />

33 <strong>The</strong> Times, 19 March 1969. p.3. Times Digital Archive 1785-1985.<br />

http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/itw/infomark/...<br />

34 G. E. Godber to D. P. Kennedy, 19 May 1969, H1 144/18 34759 Sera and Vaccines: Measles<br />

Vaccine 1968-9, Archives New Zealand (ANZ), Wellington.<br />

35 <strong>The</strong> Times, 12 June 1969, p.1. Times Digital Archive 1785-1985. Susceptible children aged between<br />

4 and 7 and those aged between one to seven who were in a day nursery or living in ‘residential<br />

establishments’ were eligible for immunisation.<br />

36 ‘Measles Vaccination Programme’ BAAK A358 127b, Measles 1939-78, ANZ, <strong>Auckland</strong>. Some <strong>of</strong><br />

these children may not have had a family doctor and therefore no access to the vaccine.<br />

37 C. N. Derek Taylor, ‘Measles Vaccination’ NZMJ, 68, 168, p.126.<br />

172

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!