fbpx

Risks of Child Vaccination Outweighed by Health Benefits – High Court Ruling

Risks of Child Vaccination Outweighed by Health Benefits - High Court Ruling

In the best traditions of a free society, vaccination is not compulsory in the UK and anyone is entitled to withhold consent to being inoculated. In an important ruling, however, the High Court overruled a mother’s moral and safety objections to her four-year-old son taking part in the national child vaccination programme.

The mother was an educated and principled woman who looked after her son very well. She was concerned about the ingredients of vaccines and the harm that they might cause to her son’s health. Despite medical advice that vaccinations are safe, she argued that such reassurance was gainsaid by the existence of a government scheme by which compensation is paid to those who suffer adverse reactions to vaccines. The boy’s father, from whom she was separated, believed that their son should be vaccinated and sought the Court’s directions in that respect.

Ruling on the matter, the Court noted the consensual nature of the UK’s vaccination system and acknowledged that vaccination is an intrusive intervention. The human rights of both mother and child to respect for their privacy and family lives were engaged. The Court, however, was uncomfortable with the idea that one parent should be able to make a unilateral choice regarding a child’s vaccination.

The Court was far from convinced that vaccinating the boy would be unsafe. The step was supported by expert medical evidence that it would effectively protect him against a number of grave diseases, some of them potentially life-threatening. There were no contra-indications in his medical history and the risk of side-effects was outweighed by the protection that vaccination would afford him.

There was a risk that he could suffer emotional harm if his mother felt undermined. There was no issue about her capability as a parent and her objections were based on her genuine beliefs. Given the risk of harm to which the boy would be exposed if not vaccinated, however, the Court found that any interference with his mother’s rights was proportionate and justified.

In ruling that the boy should be vaccinated, the Court also noted that, under Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, he was entitled to enjoy the highest attainable standards of health. Encouraging a consensual approach, the Court urged the parents to discuss the practicalities of the boy’s vaccination so that the process would be as un-disruptive as possible.

Our articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.

Covid19 Information

WE ARE STILL OPEN FOR BUSINESS HOWEVER, OUR FRONT DOORS WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. For us all to be as safe as possible, our preference will be to interact with clients by telephone, email and/or zoom meetings ONLY. We would ask that if you have to drop any papers off at our offices, you use our Post Box unless you need anything copying, in those cases please knock the door and one of our receptionists will deal with you at the front door but only if you are wearing protective face coverings. If you require further assistance then a member from the relevant department will telephone you thereafter to discuss. We hope you understand that this is to safeguard you, our staff and to limit as much contact as possible. We may take a little longer to respond to enquiries and deal with matters. Please bear with us. FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW.