High Court orders two sisters must receive MMR vaccine

[Northerner]

A judge has ruled that sisters aged 15 and 11 must have the MMR vaccine even though they and their mother do not want it, BBC Newsnight has learned.

The High Court decision, made last month, came after the girls' father brought a case seeking vaccination.

The parents, now divorced, had agreed when married not to vaccinate the girls in the wake of the MMR controversy.

But the discrediting of concerns about an MMR autism link and recent measles outbreaks changed the father's view.

This is the third time this issue has come before the court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24493422

 

[ypauly]

Father has a concern about measles, so why is the court ordering the other vaccines?

I would keep up the fight as individual choice and freedom has been eroded enough in recent years.

 

[Northerner]

Father has a concern about measles, so why is the court ordering the other vaccines?

I would keep up the fight as individual choice and freedom has been eroded enough in recent years.

I don't understand why the mother is objecting now though, given that the vaccines have been shown to be safe and therefore removing the original reason for declining.

 

[Redkite]

I don't understand why the mother is objecting now though, given that the vaccines have been shown to be safe and therefore removing the original reason for declining.

I saw this on Newsnight - the judge had ordered that they be vaccinated by the end of yesterday but this order has not been complied with. The girls themselves are refusing to be vaccinated, and usually in legal situations, a 15 year old's wishes are taken into consideration. It's not as though this is a case of life or death, they are not refusing chemo for example. And although the MMR has a good safety record, no vaccine is 100% safe, so it should be a personal choice. I think the judge is very wrong, and the father is likely to estrange himself from his daughters if he forces them to do this.

 

[ypauly]

I don't understand why the mother is objecting now though, given that the vaccines have been shown to be safe and therefore removing the original reason for declining.

That is irrelevant though given that not only the mother but the daughters do not want this.

The fact is the father raised a genuine and real concern that has to be taken seriously about a disease but that is a single disease.

Why would the courts rule that the mumps and rubella must be taken too when there is a perfectly good single vaccine for the disease concerned.