Teenager who died after having HPV vaccine had a malignant chest tumour
BMJ 2009; 339 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4032 (Published 01 October 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b4032
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
While my heart goes out to the parents of the teenage girl who passed
away after receiving the HPV vaccine, I hope that the furore seen in the
media does not spur on an MMR type scare amongst the public. The post-
mortem has now found that unfortunately the young girl had a malignant
growth and the vaccine being administered was incidental in her death.
Despite this headlines are still grabbing the shock horror element of the
story. I read one well known anti medical profession tabloid reporting a
second “reaction”, where the teenage girl became hypoglycaemic – after not
eating breakfast but her mother was disgraced at the horrific side effects
and the fact that an emergency trace of her heart was performed. Another
paper, base in Wales had the headline “Wales withdraws Cervical Vaccine”.
However, on further reading the small print detailed that the specific
batch associated with the vaccine given to the girl who passed away had
been withdrawn and replaced by another. The programme itself was still in
full swing.
We all saw how a single paper caused panic and decline in uptake in a
lifesaving vaccines. Let’s not allow this tragic incident to claim the
lives of many others as parents refuse the Cervical vaccine on the grounds
of unfounded scaremongering.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Consent for disclosure of clinical information
Editor
This sad occurence prompts a question.
The girl's death, photo and much clinical information about her has
been freely distributed in the broadcast and published media. Likewise,
the possible intersex condition of Caster Semenya has had much coverage.
Where is the line drawn between and within the general and
professional press when it comes to divulging names, ages, some history
and clinical information without, as far as one can gather, any suggestion
of consent?
Were either of these events to have been published in a clinical
journal alone then informed consent for disclosure would have been
obtained and the fact documented.
There is a public interest dimension but how is the distinction
drawn, by whom and within what guidelines?
Yours sincerely
Steve Ford
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests