Court demands MMR vaccination


Veteran Member
Reaction score
Yorkshire, UK
This is interesting scenario:

The parents are separated and the children are with the mother (as almost always happens).

The mothers refuse to have their children vaccinated with the MMR vaccine, because of repeated safety concerns.

The fathers insist on the MMR vaccine being delivered.

(There is a single vaccine for each of measles, mumps, and rubella, btw - but that wasn't the issue here).

Anyway, the court decided that the father's wishes were in the interests of the children and that the children must have the triple MMR vaccine, rather than a single vaccine for each disease.

Disturbing or right?

I feel that if a joint decision cannot be reached between the parents, the altenative vaccinations should be used. And because those are available, it shouldn't be an issue for the courts to decide. I just think it's wrong for the courts to override the very real concerns of the mother, when there is an easy, and acceptable alternative available.

Imagine the consequences if anything should go wrong that could, even remotely, be attributed to this triple vaccine. There's already a huge division in that family. What chance, now, and especially if the worst happens, of healing that?
If the children were going to be given the single jab vaccines for each of measles, mumps, and rubella, then the court's decision was wrong. If the children were not being allowed any form of vaccination then its a different case.
Because my own children were young, we were also concerned. But in the end we went for it. We made the choice together, and certainly not without some argument. Eventually we were quite agreed that any risk was so small that the risks of damage contracting one of the three diseases far outweighed any possible risk of autism.