BRITAIN: A High Court in London has directed that two young girls are to be given the MMR vaccination even though their mothers do not want them to have it.
The court ruled that it was in the best interest of the children to have the vaccination, notwithstanding the views of their mothers, based on medical evidence. The triple vaccination to inocculate against measles, mumps and rubella has been controversial in both the UK and Ireland. Some parents have been campaigning against it, arguing that it can cause autism.
The case before the court concerned two girls aged four and 10 who were living with their mothers after the breakdown of their parents' relationships. Mr Justice Sumner, who heard the two cases in private, had to rule between the fathers, who wanted immunisation, and the mothers, who did not.
The judge said yesterday: "Here there is a dispute and the court has to decide whether immunisation is in their interests, whether the mothers' opposition should prevail, and whether an order should be made.
"Recognising the anxieties of the mothers and that an adverse decision will be upsetting, the children's best interests are served by receiving a programme of immunisations and an order should be made."
The judge said the benefits of MMR outweighed any risks. He said he was aware that a civil trial was pending in April 2004 by the parents of children who claim the MMR jab was linked to autism.
The judge said the girls, identified by the initials C and F, had received no immunisation and in each case the fathers had asked the court to declare that their daughters should receive immunisation appropriate to their age. They acknowledged the risks but say their views were supported by current medical research and thinking.
But the mothers said immunisation involved unacceptable risks and there was good reason for their anxiety. Even if the court decided it was in the girl's best interests, it should not use its powers to make an order. The mothers said immunisation should be voluntary and it was not right to impose it against the wishes of a caring parent and it would cause them great distress.
Mr Justice Sumner, who invited the media into his family division court to hear the ruling this morning, said: "There are considerations which have weighed heavily with me. I accept a parent's right to choose whether they accept medical advice to have immunisation for their children or not."
He stressed that his ruling should not be seen as a general approval of immunisation for children. - (PA)