LOCAL governments have been ordered not to announce the brand of vaccines that are being given out to the public to prevent people who prefer certain brands from flocking to vaccination sites.
“The best vaccine is the one that is available,” Interior and Local Government Secretary Eduardo Año said in an e-mailed statement on Thursday. “In order to overcome brand preference, local government units should not announce the brand of vaccine to be used in vaccination centers.”
Thousands of Filipinos reportedly flocked to vaccination sites in Manila, the capital and a nearby city earlier this week to get the Pfizer, Inc. coronavirus vaccine.
President Rodrigo R. Duterte made the order to avoid overcrowding at vaccination sites, his spokesman Herminio L. Roque, Jr., told a televised news briefing.
“The President issued that order,” he said in Filipino. “It was noticed that our fellowmen have become particular about vaccine brands.”
Leonard D. Javier of Health Alliance for Democracy said the order “will only make it harder to convince people to get vaccinated.”
“Not telling people about the vaccine they will be receiving is unethical, if not illegal and violates the principle of informed consent,” the doctor said in a Facebook Messenger chat.
“It is appalling that the government wants to add more smoke to their untrustworthy record.”
Mr. Roque said the order does not violate people’s right to informed consent since all vaccine brands had been evaluated by drug regulators.
The Department of Health (DoH) said people would still be informed of the vaccine brand that they are getting.
“Not announcing what brand will be available in inoculation sites will not take away the right of individuals to be informed of the vaccine they are taking,” the agency said in a statement.
The vaccination process entails on-site vaccine education, proper recording using vaccination cards, and monitoring for adverse events, it added.
DoH said coronavirus vaccines being given out are safe and effective because these had been approved by the local Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use.
“All vaccines available now in the country are safe, effective, and have been found to reduce the risk of severe illness and prevent death after completing the required doses,” it said.
Some senators opposed the policy.
In a statement, Senator Maria Imelda Josefa R. Marcos said every patient “has a right to full disclosure and a modicum of transparency.”
Senator Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva said “vaccine agnosticism” would not work without vaccine advocacy. People should be educated before they get vaccinated, he said in a statement, noting that the biggest problem is not brand rejection but vaccine hesitancy.
“Informed choice cannot be substituted with a take-it-or-leave-it policy.”
Senator Risa N. Hontiveros-Baraquel said the “brand agnostic” vaccine policy is “counterproductive and may further erode people’s trust in the national vaccination program.” “We hope and expect the DOH will reconsider their policy decision,” she added.
Meanwhile, Senator Juan Edgardo M. Angara urged the FDA to start studying the vaccination of children below 18 years old.
“Insofar as expanding the administration of vaccines to other age groups, we should always be ahead of the curve,” he said in a statement.
He said the country should follow the United States, whose drug regulator had allowed one vaccine brand to be given to people aged 12 to 15. He also cited Singapore, which did the same.
“This is a signal for us to commence our own independent studies on the matter,” Mr. Angara said.
He said schools could be opened once children get vaccinated. The economy could benefit too, he added. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas and Kyle Aristophere T. Atienza