Skip to main content

F v F [2013] EWHC 2683 (Fam) MMR Vaccination Case

This case is the one the fuss has been about over the weekend. It is where a court had decided that an 11 and 15 year old should get the MMR vaccination when they and their mother oppose this and the father wants it.

Personally I am supportive of the MMR vaccination and think it is appropriate for my own children. However, I do have some difficulties with the approach of the court particularly in respect of a 15 year old girl. This falls into the questions of Gillick competence and the like.

If you have a toddler or an older child who has no strong views then that is one approach. However, if you have a child who is 15 I feel uncomfortable about forcing a decision on that child.

The courts do seem too willing to impose a judicial decision on people who are from a capacity perspective competent. Before the recess I assisted a young man with Muscular Dystrophy in resisting such an imposition. However, I do think there are issues about the extent to which people's decisions are overridden by the state. I could see a situation in which the state makes a decision that for herd immunity individual discretion is overridden although I am unsure that this justifies such an approach. After all anyone who wishes immunity can have the vaccination and that gives a substantial element of protection.

At this point in theory the vaccination has been given. However, we don't know the story from the perspective of anyone other than the judge.

There is also the issue that this appeared in the media before the anonymous judgment was published on Bailii (or the associated ones from 2011). I note that the judgments went onto Bailii yesterday (Saturday).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…