posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:42 PM
In this Sky News article focussing on 3 year old Lana Ameen who lost her life to the virus shortly after Christmas the parents have made this
statement in favour of the vaccine:
"The Government has made the swine flu vaccine from last year available now - we should all be having it.
"Even financially, surely it makes sense. The swine flu vaccine is inexpensive and has already been bought - it cost £1,700 just to care for Lana in
intensive care for one day."
If I'd lost my daughter to Swine Flu or any other disease my thoughts would not be on the financial implications associated with vaccination - surely
that's a statement the health minister should be making. There's simply something fishy about this quote - I wouldn't be asking how much my child's
care burdened the economy before she died - would anyone think to ask for this information? Pleading for all to have their children vaccinated and to
focus on the real importance - the cost??!
I don't wish to demean this poor girls death, and of course as with any loss of life I hope the family can recover from their tragedy. I just hope
they haven't either been coaxed into making these comments but I can't see any reason why greiving parents would focus on the cost factor of a vaccine
rather than simply encouraging take up because it will save lives! Odd.. IMO - what are your thoughts? SEE BELOW
COPY PASTE - Sky link not redirecting correctly!!
EDIT/UPDATE: On revisiting this story and another article it seems the couple have been massively misquoted by Sky News. The parents actually wanted
the vaccine but were turned away on reasons of cost - so I completely understand why they would collect the financials... I'm gobsmacked at how Sky
would twist their words of concern about the lack of available vaccines to those who decide for themselves to have them into a loud hailer for how
great the government is - this couple don't feel that way about the NHS or the government.
Read the whole story here: www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 12-1-2011 by Pr0t0 because: (no reason given)