MUSLIM leaders have cast doubt over the Scottish Government and NHS explanation for the use of pork in a flu vaccine, saying other products are available.
The Muslim Council of Scotland (MCS) said a 2001 ruling cited by health chiefs and ministers for not revealing the vaccine contained pork gelatine actually only allowed the use of pig-derived products if the individual was already ill and no other medicine was available.
The MCS said Islamic Law had the same message, and as the vaccine being rolled out in Scotland's biggest ever immunisation programme was only a precautionary measure, it was advising against its use.
It was revealed yesterday the immunisation programme had been halted days after its launch by First Minister Alex Salmond because Muslim parents were not told the vaccine contained pork gelatine.
In England, the Fluenz vaccine attracted criticism just a fortnight ago for the same reason, sparking accusations of insensitivity to Muslims, Jews and vegetarians, and concerns over the lack of information to parents.
It is understood Glasgow-based parents only became aware when family members in Leicestershire informed them of the criticism and concerns there over the use of the vaccine.
The parents in Scotland then alerted staff at Glendale Primary school in Pollokshields, which resulted in the postponement of the scheme.
It has also emerged that in 2003 the NHS injected hundreds of Muslim babies in the Glasgow area with a derivative of pork used in one of the two triple measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines used by GPs, sparking angry reaction from Muslim leaders.
At least one other west of Scotland local authority has demanded an apology from the NHS over the failure to inform parents of the ingredients before the vaccine was administered.
However, Dr Syed Ahmed, consultant in public health medicine at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has said all the communications used locally were produced by the Scottish Government, adding that there are more than 700 medicinal products currently in use that contain similar gelatine.
He also said that in England and Wales parents are given a take-it-or-leave-it choice with Fluenz, and reaffirmed Muslim scholars ruled in 2001 that gelatine products were permitted. He insisted there was no need apologise and that parents had not been misled.
Dr Salah Beltagui, of the MCS, said: "This 2001 ruling on several counts doesn't pass the test. We don't see there is a necessity for using something that has a product which is not halal because this is only a precaution.
"It is not treating a person who is already ill. There is also an alternative available, and for these reasons we have advised against its use. The authorities have a public duty of service under equality legislation to fully inform where something impacts upon religion."
He also said that if the vaccine had been administered to children without the full consent of parents, given facts about the ingredients there should be a full apology.
The Scottish Secular Society agreed full information needed to be available.
A spokesman said: "It's naive to assume that all Muslim and Jewish parents would have been aware that pork gelatine is declared halal in medicines.
"This mistake could have been avoided by the issuing of more information for parents explaining that the spray included gelatine.
"We would hope that sensitivity on both sides of this issue will be displayed, so that children are able to get an important vaccine to safeguard their health. Communication is essential to ensure that happens."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article