On Thursday night, officials and faculty of the Medical Faculty of Republic University issued a statement in which they “express our deepest rejection of a judicial opinion that we regard as scientifically incorrect, epidemiologically risky and socially incorrect.” deemed irresponsible,” in reference to the sentence of controversial-administrative judge Alejandro Recari, who suspended vaccinations in children under the age of 13. The decision was questioned almost unanimously by the political system and by doctors and scientific societies.
The medical faculty joined in on these responses. In the statement, officials and educators explain: “All well-conducted studies in the world show very good safety and effectiveness of vaccination with an excellent benefit/risk ratio. is applicable, increases a potential risk because we still do not know what long-term consequences of the disease can be.”
Support our journalism.
Subscribe for $195/month
They believe that the harm “may be irreparable” from a social point of view: “It will go on for other times, with other vaccines and other treatments affecting those who cannot voice their opinions.” In that sense, they call for a review of the measure and “scientific information currently available in this regard”.
In addition to Dean Miguel Martínez, teachers and experts Henri Cohen, Julio Medina, Mónica Puzadas, Victoria Française, Laura Accebedo, Adriana Cassina, Catalina Pirez and Ricardo Roca signed the statement.
Medical Association: Vaccines are “one of the most equitable measures available to protect populations”
For its part, the Medical Association of Uruguay (CMU) also issued a statement to the population in which it highlights the benefits of the vaccine in preventing the serious development of the disease, which is “for people (children, adolescents and adults)”. This indicates that vaccination is not mandatory in Uruguay, and that such vaccines are “a mandatory good and one of the most equitable measures available to protect the population.”
“CMU expresses its deep concern over the suspension of a public health measure through a judicial decision that undermines the freedom to choose the father, mother and adult in charge of children and adolescents,” the text concludes.