|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Vaccine Damage is only the Beginning The effects of vaccine damage on an infant are not just a simple life-long single tragedy. The repercussions of that initial event will often stimulate other tragedies that, taken together, exacerbate the epitonic aspects of that person’s life. It may be appropriate therefore to give you a snapshot of some of these events that have darkened my daughter’s life. I am sure that these sorts of events are not uncommon and are probably mirrored in the lives of others who have been similarly damaged. L was born a healthy child to loving parents in 1960. We were told that it was in her best interests to have her vaccinated at six-months of age [DPT]. So we did just that. Almost immediately after the first vaccination L went into a paroxysm of convulsion, but seemingly recovered after a few days. This was reported to the doctor at the time of the next appointment for phase two of the programme. The doctor said that she would give only a reduced dose (thereby acknowledging there was some contraindication to subsequent doses). Again within a very short time (the same day), further and more complicated convulsions occurred and L was seriously ill for almost a fortnight. The doctor then decided that no more vaccinations should be given. Subsequently after neurological investigation L was pronounced to be brain-damaged. L was lovingly cared for by her parents, but at the age of ten months, whilst still being breast-fed, she had an accident that required hospitalisation. The hospital told my wife and me that we could only visit her once a day at 6 p.m.; and further my wife was given 36 hours to wean L from the breast. L was in hospital for three weeks and returned home a devastated child. As parents we were left to cope with our child, without any adequate advice on what we might expect, and when she developed some behavioural problems through her lack of ability to understand the corner of the world into which she had been so violently thrown, she was put into a drug regime (at the age of eight) that has continued more or less continuously until the present day. When L was about 20 we moved to another part of the UK and she was put into a respite care situation, on the advice of her then GP, so that we could make the transition and at the same time gain a little time to recover from the years of caring for our damaged child. The private Home that took L, registered by social services, found that she did not sleep very well. The care staff, rather than feel sympathetic and be understanding of her temporary separation from her parents, told the manager that if L was not removed from the Home by the time they came on duty the following night, they would not remain on duty. The manager therefore had L admitted to a local mental handicap hospital, where she was put on a ward of teenagers who were there mainly for disruptive behaviour. L was terrorised and received serious injuries when she was struck with something like a paling from a fence that still had the nail embedded in it. Her foot and hand were affected by acute cellulitis for about six weeks. She was so affected by this terrorism that she often fainted with alarm and had to be admitted several times to the hospital infirmary. By the time she was discharged some fourteen months later she was doubly incontinent and so drugged that she was incoherent and uncoordinated. By this time her mother was ill and the hospital in the new area was asked for assistance. This was refused, and the same week L’s mother died. I was then her sole carer, and was left to cope as best I could. Eventually the hospital took in L, first as a day patient, and then admitted her full-time because I was working. L was a patient there for about ten years, and during that time she was assaulted by being bitten by another resident on four occasions, on two of those, suturing was necessary to her hand and face. The hospital promised to separate the two women but did not do so until after the third occasion. The fourth biting incident was by another resident. When I started to take legal action against the health authority for lack of care, L was seen by a plastic surgeon who assessed her injuries that had by then healed to scars. His view was that as she was ‘mentally handicapped’ she would not be aware of the disfigurement and that damages would be little or none. So I took-up the matter as a complaint with the health authority that promised to look after her better in the future. Following that she was placed in a locked ward, where a further attack took place. Finally as a sop, so to speak, the first attacker had all of her bottom teeth removed. [A ploy that was mistakenly determined to avoid her causing harm to anyone else.] L was rehabilitated from hospital in 1992 into a community living situation where she was placed with one other handicapped person and a team of carers on 24-hour duty. By this time she had (unknowingly to her carers) developed PTSD as a result of the trauma she had experienced in hospital. Her long experience of being faced with situations from which she could not escape or defend, had brought about reactions that when triggered would put her into an anxiety state. A state that was not understood, because her history had not been explained nor had her initial neurological impairment ever been investigated. So once more she was drugged, and again she became doubly incontinent, didn’t sleep properly, lost weight, dribbled constantly, etc. She lost all of her acquired social activities – swimming, riding, music and walking. The money that financed this community living situation for L was ring-fenced until last year, now it is at the mercy of local government politicians. Due to the need for cuts in expenditure the social services department is taking steps to pass the scheme over to the private sector on an agency basis, and amalgamate schemes so that there would be a minimum of four people to each house. For forty years L has been misunderstood, misdiagnosed, mistreated and abused, all because her innocent parents believed that they were doing what they had been told was right. I feel that the NHS and social services has a duty to be called on to respond with an acknowledgement of their errors and some substantial contribution to an adequate future welfare of L. Author's name withheld by request.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
