ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Measles-Rubella Vaccine

Yet Another Vaccine Piggybacking on the Universal Immunisation Programme

The mandatory measles–rubella (MR) vaccination drive initiated in schools by the Indian government in October 2019 has raised questions regarding whether informed consent was sought from parents prior to vaccination and its legal implications. This article presents a comprehensive picture of informed consent processes, ethics, and the law, and the need for evidence prior to implementing national vaccination policies. In the case of a combination vaccine such as the MR vaccine, we see that the rubella vaccine gained entry to India’s universal immunisation programme (UIP) without clear scientific evidence on its disease burden and in the absence of public demand for such a vaccine by piggybacking on another universal vaccine (measles).

The author is grateful to the reviewer for pointing out important omissions and commissions to make this article more authentic. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

The mandatory measlesrubella (MR) vaccination drive in private schools in various parts of India raised many concerns following its launch in 2017. Parents asked several questions: Why are schools enforcing mandatory vaccination irrespective of prior vaccination? Why should consent be given without knowing the merits/demerits of MR vaccination? Does this extra dose provide any additional benefit to my child? What is congenital rubella syndrome (CRS)?

Conversely, a section of academia and civil society questioned the scientific grounds for this vaccination drive: Does rubella causes high mortality and morbidity in India and is there a routine survey of data on the same? What is the prevalence of rubella in India? Is the fear of CRS in India scientifically grounded? Why was this sudden attention being given to rubella vaccination, that too in combination with the measles vaccine? Is a second dose of the measles vaccine beneficial? What went on behind closed doors in the meetings held by the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI)? Who manufactures and supplies MR vaccines to the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP)? Was this decision based on sound scientific evidence and a cost-effectiveness analysis? What are the ethical concerns and legal implications of this mandatory vaccination?

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Or

To gain instant access to this article (download).


Pay
INR 59

(Readers in India)


Pay
$ 6

(Readers outside India)

Published On : 13th Jan, 2024

Support Us

Your Support will ensure EPW’s financial viability and sustainability.

The EPW produces independent and public-spirited scholarship and analyses of contemporary affairs every week. EPW is one of the few publications that keep alive the spirit of intellectual inquiry in the Indian media.

Often described as a publication with a “social conscience,” EPW has never shied away from taking strong editorial positions. Our publication is free from political pressure, or commercial interests. Our editorial independence is our pride.

We rely on your support to continue the endeavour of highlighting the challenges faced by the disadvantaged, writings from the margins, and scholarship on the most pertinent issues that concern contemporary Indian society.

Every contribution is valuable for our future.