Mother speaks out over MMR ruling

Return to Vaccination News Home Page

Subscribe to the Vaccination NewsLetter

View past & current Scandals (columns by Sandy Mintz)

The mother of one of two youngsters ordered by the High Court to undergo MMR jabs has described the ruling as an outrage, and says she will appeal.

Mr Justice Sumner ruled on two separate cases heard in private where the fathers wanted immunisation and inoculation protection for their daughters - aged four and 10 - who live with their unmarried mothers.

The children cannot be named for legal reasons, but in a statement one of the mothers said: "I think this ruling is an outrage. To date, vaccination has not been compulsory in Britain. Another freedom is being eroded.

"This effectively means that any parent, indeed anybody can launch a complaint against you, saying they don't like your beliefs, and want your child protected from your beliefs.

"This ruling makes it possible for officials to take my child and inject her with MMR jabs against my beliefs and my will - against the will of her mother, who lives with her, cares for her and looks after her.

"And for what? No one argues this is a life-saving measure. It's not blood transfusion. My child is not ill.

"Vaccination is a distorted, out-of-date, catch-all, cash cow for the drugs companies, that carries a serious risk of damage to my child.

"And who is willing to take responsibility if something terrible happens? Not the judge, nor the vaccination company, not the doctor injecting my child, and surely not the father who has not to this date paid any child maintenance.

"I challenge the aforementioned to sign that they are willing to take financial responsibility for any adverse reactions. Some scientists say that the risk of vaccination is not proven. In the past they have said similar stuff about tobacco and mad cow disease. I don't trust them and I reserve the right not to trust them.

"There are reasonable grounds for doubt about childhood vaccination. My right to protect my child in the face of that reasonable doubt is being taken away. It's outrageous that, in a free society, a judge could make such a decision. We are going to appeal."

Return to Vaccination News Home Page

DISCLAIMER: All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in consultation with your health care provider.