A jab at reality

Journalists and editors seldom highlight errors and misjudgements by other members of their trade. An exception was The Guardian’s story on 1 October headed “Media accused of scaremongering on cancer jab death” and subtitled “Coverage causing more harm than good”. The case at issue was that of a 14-year old Coventry schoolgirl who had died a few days previously, after receiving human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. The criticism was apposite, as many newspaper, radio and TV reporters had failed to exercise caution in linking the vaccine causally with the fatality. Some had also alleged that HPV immunisation had been suspended around the UK. Initial press coverage of the incident, even when it mentioned uncertainty about the cause of death, illustrated the disproportionate impact of headlines. “Girl of 14 dies Mediawatch: Bernard Dixon looks at the reaction to the death of a young girl after a routine HPV vaccination. A jab at reality after cervical cancer jab” said a Daily Mirror headline (29 September) occupying more space on the page than the report below. “Rogue cervical cancer jab fears after girl, 14, dies. Authorities seize suspect vaccine batch,” announced the Daily Mail on the same day. The Daily Mirror focused on human interest (“Everyone was panicking... It’s really scary”) with one cautionary sentence at the very end: “Health officials last night stressed that there was not yet any evidence that the jab was responsible for Natalie’s death”. The Guardian was particularly careful, reporting a Coventry city council official’s view that “no link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known and a post mortem takes place.” Next day, however, the Daily Mail devoted three pages to the story, heralded by a front-page banner headline ‘Chaos Over Cancer Jab For Girls’, and asserting that many health trusts throughout the country were cancelling vaccinations. There were similar assertions elsewhere, coupled with reports of anxieties among public health authorities that growing alarm might adversely affect immunisation campaigns against swine flu and other infections. The Daily Mirror produced a huge, self-defeating ‘DON’T PANIC’ headline, accompanied by a picture of tributes to Natalie pinned to a wooden cross and comments such as “we could be harming a whole generation of teenage girls” from a Birmingham mother. Some of the unhelpful coverage was by writers ostensibly seeking to be helpful. The Independent (30 September) provided a mostly well-informed page of answers to the question “Is the cervical cancer vaccine safe, and should girls stop taking it?” But a summary box had three bullet points in favour and three against, implying that the arguments were evenly balanced. Even commentators who should have known better were unwilling to wait for a post mortem. “The sudden death of Coventry schoolgirl Natalie Morton after a jab against cervical cancer highlights the reality that vaccination programmes are not without their risks,” wrote Dr Richard Halvorsen in the Daily Mail. Lambasting “evangelists for mass vaccination”, Halvorsen argued that “the tragic irony for Natalie was that