Home
Politics
Andrew Wakefield and his wife Carmel (AFP/Shaun Curry)
The suggestion horrified parents and led to a slump in the number of youngsters getting the jab, as well as triggering heated debate in medical circles.
The take-up of injections is yet to recover a decade on from the controversy.
In a ruling Thursday, the General Medical Council attacked Wakefield for "unethical" research methods and for showing a "callous disregard" for the youngsters as he carried out tests.
This included taking blood samples from children at his son's birthday party for five-pound (eight-dollar, six-euro) payments.
The council further criticised him for acting in a misleading, dishonest and irresponsible way in the manner he described his 1998 study on children.
"Despite your explanation that you did not consider it unethical to obtain blood in this way, the panel found that it was unethical and that you did not have ethical approval for such an undertaking," said Doctor Surendra Kumar, chairman of the council's disciplinary panel.
"It also found that you caused blood to be taken in an inappropriate social setting and you showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer.
"You abused your position of trust as a medical practitioner."
Wakefield -- who was working in London at the time of the research but is now based in the United States -- said he was "extremely disappointed" by the ruling and added the accusations against him were "unfounded and unjust."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The take-up of injections is yet to recover a decade on from the controversy.
In a ruling Thursday, the General Medical Council attacked Wakefield for "unethical" research methods and for showing a "callous disregard" for the youngsters as he carried out tests.
This included taking blood samples from children at his son's birthday party for five-pound (eight-dollar, six-euro) payments.
The council further criticised him for acting in a misleading, dishonest and irresponsible way in the manner he described his 1998 study on children.
"Despite your explanation that you did not consider it unethical to obtain blood in this way, the panel found that it was unethical and that you did not have ethical approval for such an undertaking," said Doctor Surendra Kumar, chairman of the council's disciplinary panel.
"It also found that you caused blood to be taken in an inappropriate social setting and you showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer.
"You abused your position of trust as a medical practitioner."
Wakefield -- who was working in London at the time of the research but is now based in the United States -- said he was "extremely disappointed" by the ruling and added the accusations against him were "unfounded and unjust."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
