This is my version of the stroppy letter to GP shamelessly plagarising chunks from Twiglett's excellent missive.
Please could you run your eye down and suggest changes (grammatical, factual, tone etc as appropriate)... thank you!
Dear Dr XXX,
Re: Primary Routine Vaccination of DTP for XXX XXX
Further to my telephone conversation with the nurse earlier last week and my appointment with the practice nurse, XXX, earlier today, I am writing to explain why I would prefer DTaP vaccinations rather than DTwP for my son, XXX, and also to provide you with more information that you might find useful.
As you may be aware, I am strongly in favour of vaccination but are concerned that injecting ethylmercury into infants can be potentially problematic in certain cases. My son is potentially at increased risk of serious adverse effects due to his maternal great-grandfather's and maternal grandmother's history of auto-immune disease (rheumatoid arthritis). The latest research from Columbia University (Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal are Mouse Strain Dependent by M Horniug, D Chiang and WI Lipkin) published June 2004 in Molecular Psychiatry has identified just such a risk in mice. I have enclosed a copy of their paper for your interest (document 1).
I appreciate that DTwP is the ?recommended? vaccination course at present, despite plans to phase it out, however I also believe that following consultations with their GP, parents have the choice to request DTaP instead, with their GP?s consent. I accept that as a busy practice with a large number of infants in your care that you have to have a consistent policy, but do hope that you will be willing to make exceptions in certain cases and when requested by parents.
I further understand that in a memorandum to all Medical Directors of NHS Trusts in June 2003, Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Andrew Fraser recommended DTwP but concluded with the comment that ?(it should be recognised) that a final decision about immunisation of a child requires the informed consent of a parent or guardian and that it is open to parents to request, and doctors to provide, an alternative vaccine, which is licensed in the UK and available through the NHS".
During my telephone conversation with one of your practice nurses earlier last week, I was informed that you did not stock Infanrix (the accepted thimerosal-free alternative). When I expressed surprise as I understood this to be the vaccine used for the pre-school boosters, this statement was withdrawn.
This morning, on speaking with XXX, I was informed that the real reason Benjamin wasn't able to receive Infanrix was because this vaccine is not licensed in the UK for the routine primary vaccinations and it was "not surgery policy to administer non-licensed vaccines". I was also given a Thiomersal and Vaccines factsheet printed from the NHS's immunisation information website. I am happy to be able to inform you that this is not in fact the case. Infanrix is licensed for use in the UK for primary vaccinations. I have provided printouts from the British National Formulary where both Infanrix and Infanrix-Hib are clearly listed for this age group as a Prescription Only Medicine (documents 2 and 3). Ironically, the factsheet I was given at the surgery also lists Infanrix as an accepted thiomersal-free alternative for routine primary immunisation on page 4. I have also enclosed a copy of this for your interest (document 4).
Therefore, in summary, I understand that:
a) Infanrix is available as it is the recommended pre-booster vaccination.
b) it is licensed vaccine suitable for primary vaccination at 2,3 and 4 months of age.
c) it is a suitable alternative vaccination which is available on the NHS.
and I would appreciate if Infanrix could be given to my son at his appointment in two weeks time and two further doses given at the appropriate intervals. I would be grateful to hear your decision on this matter as soon as possible and I have enclosed a stamped addressed envelope for your convenience.
Yours sincerely
GeorginaA