A very interesting discussion has been brewing online recently related to Polio vaccination in Pakistan.
About a year ago, clerics in NWFP announced using the broadcast mediums available to them, that Polio vaccinations was actually an American plot to make the children of the region infertile. The parents of almost 24,000 children subsequently refused to allow their kids to get vaccinated, resulted in a sharp increase in the cases of polio in that region.
Mosque speakers, radio stations and word of mouth techniques were used to spread the message (hey, they knew viral marketing!) so clerics were largely blamed for spreading misinformation (a guardian article said 60% of refusals were given for religious reasons).
Later in 2007, refusal turned to hostility at the hands of militants who had bought into the rumors - polio workers were blown up trying to villages, and others were threatened, causing vaccination programs to be suspended.
Recent news includes a Fatwa issued in January by MMA’s leadership that urged residents of the north to get polio vaccinations, and the recently controversial peace pact with militants in the region which also included provisions to enable vaccination, which has now caused the polio program to continue.
But this is just half of the story. I have three points to add - is it really correct to blame the clerics for preventing vaccination and could corporations and companies have done anything to help?
Firstly, isnt it pompous to blame anyone for not taking vaccinations? As the CHUP editor points out in the original post, even in the US vaccinations are left as a choice in majority of the states, where all but 2 states have the right to refuse vaccinations on religious grounds, and many allow exceptions on philosophical grounds! Rural Physician gives more history of this "vaccination anxiety", dating it back to the 1950s when a vaccine created by Clutter Laboratories caused paralysis.
Should vaccinations still be considered a choice of the people or is there enough evidence to support considerations that make it mandatory under law?
Second point: why only blame clerics - because they are an easy target? Think of this from another way - who makes us pompous enough to think we can just walk into someone else’s culture, and tell them what to do? The intents might be noble, but I couldnt help feeling that the approaches used by the healthcare workers may not have factored local culture or sensitivities - and that that is the more likely cause of such an empassioned response from the local communities.
A friend of mine referred me to the book Three Cups of Tea - which has a beautiful description of how one man overcame very similar challenges. His take: you have to find local evangelists to sell the message for you. In the case of the northern regions - if clerics really do have such an influence over the region, and are basing their decisions on faith, it could have been simpler to use the right approach to make them buy-into the idea, make them comfortable with the presence of healthcare workers, and asking for their assistance to help their people. Do you think a less presumptious approach was possible?
Thirdly, when all of this was in mid-stream - could any company or corporate entity intervened to help? Yes, it would have been an enormously bold step for a company to try to negotiate with clerics who already have a difference of opinion with capitalism, but could something have been done? Could pharmaceuticals or vaccine importers or distributors have found any business incentive to spend the extra time, energy and investment to do so? This one I’ll leave to you - it would be great to hear your thoughts on it
Share This
The 
Community Thoughts