F v F: MMR Vaccine – Welfare Need or Welfare Norm?
| Pages | 284-289 |
| DOI | 10.3366/elr.2014.0214 |
| Date | 01 May 2014 |
| Author | Lesley-Anne Barnes Macfarlane |
| Published date | 01 May 2014 |
The parental choices that precipitated this family dispute predate the litigation by more than a decade. In 1998 Mr and Mrs F were, like many parents, influenced by the widespread publicity surrounding a research paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield which was published in
In consultation with their GP, Mr and Mrs F agreed that L (who had already received the MMR at birth) should not receive the MMR booster vaccine. They also decided that M, born in 2002, should receive no MMR vaccinations at all. Dr Wakefield's research was later discredited.
His findings were retracted by
In raising the proceedings, Mr F's application focused on his increasing concern, in view of the changing medical research landscape, that his daughters had not been immunised. He explained that his anxieties were exacerbated following media coverage of an outbreak of measles in Swansea in 2013. Mr F denied that he had overreacted to “tabloid hysteria”.
At the hearing on 31 July 2013, Ms Vivian and the adult parties gave oral evidence. Significantly, “both [parents] had the opportunity to adduce medical evidence, which was not taken up”
Para 16.
by either of them. This prompted Theis J to observe that “the court can only make decisions on the evidence that it has in each particular case and by considering the welfare needs of each child”.Para 21.
In granting the father's application, thereby ruling against the wishes of the children and their mother, the judge noted that the evidence “all point[ed] one way …...
To continue reading
Request your trial