Adolescent Refusal of MMR Inoculation: F (Mother) v F (Father)
| Author | Emma Cave |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12082 |
| Published date | 01 July 2014 |
Adolescent Refusal of MMR Inoculation: F (Mother)
vF (Father)
Emma Cave*
F (Mother) vF (Father) concerned a dispute between parents as to whether or not their 15 and 11
year old children should receive the MMR inoculation. Mrs Justice Theis took into consideration
the wishes of both parents and the two ‘intelligent, articulate and thoughtful’ minors and held that
inoculation was in their best interests. The troubled history of the MMR vaccine and its
importance to public health provided the backdrop. Whilst the court’s efforts to establish the
views of the minors are to be commended, the decision is problematic in its assessment of the
minors’ individual medical interests and capacities, and in the significance placed on their views
when determining whether inoculation would be in their best interests.
INTRODUCTION
Measles, mumps and rubella are highly contagious, untreatable, viral diseases that
can have serious, sometimes fatal, effects. Incidence is vastly reduced by vacci-
nation. The NHS offers a combined MMR vaccination in two courses. The first
is usually given shortly after the child’s first birthday and the second between the
child’s third and fifth birthdays. In F (Mother) vF (Father),1a recently divorced
father wanted his two daughters L and M, aged 15 and 11 respectively, to receive
the MMR vaccine. As a baby, L was given the first course, but no booster. M
had not received either course.
The parents had been influenced by widely held concerns about the safety
of the vaccine that emerged shortly after L received the first course. These
concerns were later allayed to the satisfaction of the father,2but the mother
and daughters continued to reject inoculation. Section 2(7) of the Children
Act 1989 enables a person with parental responsibility to provide sole consent.
However, even if the father had been able to find doctors willing to carry out
the inoculation in the face of the minors’ objections, a parental dispute about
immunisation is one of a small group of decisions that parents cannot take
unilaterally.3The father therefore applied to the court for a specific issue order
that both daughters receive the MMR vaccination. Mrs F, the mother,
opposed the application.
Mrs Justice Theis established that the paramount consideration is the
welfare of the minors, applying the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the
ing, intelligent, articulate and thoughtful’5and having consulted reports to
*Reader in Law, Durham Law School, Durham University. With grateful thanks to the reviewers.
2ibid at [12] and [17].
3ReJ[2000] 1 FLR 571 at 577; Re C (Welfare of Children: Immunisation) [2003] 2 FLR 1095 at [16].
4 n 1 above at [8].
5ibid at [5].
bs_bs_banner
Adolescent refusal of MMR inoculation
© 2014 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2014 The Modern Law Review Limited.
630 (2014) 77(4) MLR 619–640
To continue reading
Request your trial