Andrew Wakefield Case Study

In a 1998 publication in a well-respected British medical journal, “The Lancet”, Dr. Andrew Wakefield drew attention to a possible link between the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine with colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The article later to be found fraudulent and was retracted in its entirety in 2002 created news stories of growing opposition to the combined immunization. In reaction to this coverage, vaccination rates dropped in the United Kingdom and an increase of measles and mumps resulted with permanent injury and fatalities (Pepys, 2007)
Through the work of investigative journalist of the Sunday Times, Brian Deer, multiple ethical violations promulgated by Andrew Wakefield have been uncovered including undisclosed
From our assigned reading, “Fostering an ethical organization from the bottom up and the outside in,” the lack of an ethical infrastructure, formal systems, informal norms, and a work climate associated with ethical decisions, provided an environment for ethical missteps to occur. If the hospital had a strong ethics review committee that had to be consulted on matters of public information, a balanced review of the facts may have prevented such a press conference from occurring. As the organization that employed Dr. Wakefield with duties to its patients and the public it would benefit from procedures that would evaluate any publications of its member doctors and counter any claims that did not live up to best practices in the pursuit of offering the best health service to its patients. To the credit of some of the coauthors of the article that Wakefield initially published, upon learning of the conflict of interest of the money that was contributed, they pulled their names from the publication. Such individuals displayed ethical behavior rooted in their personal values. But on one level they acted as Mr. McCoy and the his climbing team in “The Parable of the Sadhu”. They did something that answered their internal moral compass but did not put themselves out on a limb or that would interrupt their own personal goal. Another choice they could have made was to be an internal check for the organization they worked for. They could have demanded evidence and clear scientific proof that was replicated to make sure the patients that they cared for and the information other doctors would use was based on best practices. The question of how reflective the hospital was of the ethical concerns that this raised is in doubt. The fact that Dr Wakefield while a doctor at Royal Free Hospital additionally published reviews three and four years later based on