http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5017854.html

Fury after court says kids must have MMR

FEARS: many parents do not want their child to receive the MMR jab as the treatment has been linked to autism

TWO mothers are to be forced by a court to have their children vaccinated with the controversial MMR jab.

The decision shocked the mothers and led to an angry backlash from a support group.

The girls' fathers, who are not married to the mothers, launched the action after the mums refused to allow the children to have a series of jabs, including the MMR injection which has been linked to autism.

The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the treatment.

Today three appeal judges again ruled against the mothers.

Isabella Thomas, a spokeswoman for Jabs, a support group for parents whose children have suffered after jabs, said: "There must be a human rights issue here.

"This is not a nanny state but the big brother bully state. This could set a precedent.

"Vaccinations are not compulsory and should never be. We are not blaming the judge in any way ... he was given one-sided evidence in a way."

She urged the pair to fight their case at the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms Thomas said she had spoken to the mother of one child in the wake of the court decision.

She added: "She is in shock at the moment. She is very, very scared.

"She said to me 'Are they going to tell me what schools (my child) will go to?"'

In a hearing at the appeal court last week, an agent for the mothers told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling would have on the families.

The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation should be voluntary.

One girl had asked not have the MMR jab.

Mr Justice Sumner ordered that both children should receive the jab as the benefits outweighed the risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge's approach had been "above criticism".

He added: "These applications were decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned."

Lord Justice Sedley said: "Mr Justice Sumner had been advised by two "knowledgeable clinical scientists".

"They concurred ... that there was a strong scientific evidence that the risks of not immunising children were real and in many instances serious." TWO mothers are to be forced by a court to have their children vaccinated with the controversial MMR jab.

The decision shocked the mothers and led to an angry backlash from a support group.

The girls' fathers, who are not married to the mothers, launched the action after the mums refused to allow the children to have a series of jabs, including the MMR injection which has been linked to autism.

The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the treatment.

Today three appeal judges again ruled against the mothers.

Isabella Thomas, a spokeswoman for Jabs, a support group for parents whose children have suffered after jabs, said: "There must be a human rights issue here.

"This is not a nanny state but the big brother bully state. This could set a precedent.

"Vaccinations are not compulsory and should never be. We are not blaming the judge in any way ... he was given one-sided evidence in a way."

She urged the pair to fight their case at the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms Thomas said she had spoken to the mother of one child in the wake of the court decision.

She added: "She is in shock at the moment. She is very, very scared.

"She said to me 'Are they going to tell me what schools (my child) will go to?"'

In a hearing at the appeal court last week, an agent for the mothers told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling would have on the families.

The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation should be voluntary.

One girl had asked not have the MMR jab.

Mr Justice Sumner ordered that both children should receive the jab as the benefits outweighed the risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge's approach had been "above criticism".

He added: "These applications were decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned."

Lord Justice Sedley said: "Mr Justice Sumner had been advised by two "knowledgeable clinical scientists".

"They concurred ... that there was a strong scientific evidence that the risks of not immunising children were real and in many instances serious." TWO mothers are to be forced by a court to have their children vaccinated with the controversial MMR jab.

The decision shocked the mothers and led to an angry backlash from a support group.

The girls' fathers, who are not married to the mothers, launched the action after the mums refused to allow the children to have a series of jabs, including the MMR injection which has been linked to autism.

The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the treatment.

Today three appeal judges again ruled against the mothers.

Isabella Thomas, a spokeswoman for Jabs, a support group for parents whose children have suffered after jabs, said: "There must be a human rights issue here.

"This is not a nanny state but the big brother bully state. This could set a precedent.

"Vaccinations are not compulsory and should never be. We are not blaming the judge in any way ... he was given one-sided evidence in a way."

She urged the pair to fight their case at the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms Thomas said she had spoken to the mother of one child in the wake of the court decision.

She added: "She is in shock at the moment. She is very, very scared.

"She said to me 'Are they going to tell me what schools (my child) will go to?"'

In a hearing at the appeal court last week, an agent for the mothers told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling would have on the families.

The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation should be voluntary.

One girl had asked not have the MMR jab.

Mr Justice Sumner ordered that both children should receive the jab as the benefits outweighed the risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge's approach had been "above criticism".

He added: "These applications were decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned."

Lord Justice Sedley said: "Mr Justice Sumner had been advised by two "knowledgeable clinical scientists".

"They concurred ... that there was a strong scientific evidence that the risks of not immunising children were real and in many instances serious." TWO mothers are to be forced by a court to have their children vaccinated with the controversial MMR jab.

The decision shocked the mothers and led to an angry backlash from a support group.

The girls' fathers, who are not married to the mothers, launched the action after the mums refused to allow the children to have a series of jabs, including the MMR injection which has been linked to autism.

The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the treatment.

Today three appeal judges again ruled against the mothers.

Isabella Thomas, a spokeswoman for Jabs, a support group for parents whose children have suffered after jabs, said: "There must be a human rights issue here.

"This is not a nanny state but the big brother bully state. This could set a precedent.

"Vaccinations are not compulsory and should never be. We are not blaming the judge in any way ... he was given one-sided evidence in a way."

She urged the pair to fight their case at the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms Thomas said she had spoken to the mother of one child in the wake of the court decision.

She added: "She is in shock at the moment. She is very, very scared.

"She said to me 'Are they going to tell me what schools (my child) will go to?"'

In a hearing at the appeal court last week, an agent for the mothers told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling would have on the families.

The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation should be voluntary.

One girl had asked not have the MMR jab.

Mr Justice Sumner ordered that both children should receive the jab as the benefits outweighed the risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge's approach had been "above criticism".

He added: "These applications were decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned."

Lord Justice Sedley said: "Mr Justice Sumner had been advised by two "knowledgeable clinical scientists".

"They concurred ... that there was a strong scientific evidence that the risks of not immunising children were real and in many instances serious."

Copyright © 2003 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved