header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

An injection of sense

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. 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 their

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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll