header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 November 2013 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7583 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

An injection of sense

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
NLJ this week: Stealing virtual gold?
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll