header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

An injection of sense

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
08 November 2013 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7583 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail
web_coverimage

Jonathan Herring considers vaccinations & the right to refuse
The case of F v F [2013] EWHC 2783 (Fam) involved a dispute over the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination of two girls, L (aged 15) and M (aged 11). The vaccination normally takes place not long after birth. However, the parents decided not to have M vaccinated at all and not to give L the recommended booster jab. That decision was made because at the time Dr Andrew Wakefield’s (now discredited) research had raised concerns about the safety of the vaccination.

 

Change of mind

The issue over vaccination had come to the court because the couple had separated and the father now believed the girls should receive the vaccination. The mother retained her original view that they should not. The mother’s opposition was grounded in her questioning of the benefits of the vaccine and concern over side effects. She also believed the father was going back on an agreement they had reached over the issue. The girls lived with

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll