Uptake of the MMR jab is falling

A High Court judge has ordered two young girls to be given the controversial MMR vaccine against the wishes of their mothers.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Sumner found in favour of the children's fathers, who want the girls to receive the three-in-one mumps, measles and rubella jab.

His decision came as GPs called on the government's top doctors to resign over the MMR issue.

GPs said parents were unwilling to take their advice to allow their children to be given the jab because of the fact that part of their income is linked to MMR uptake.

Forced immunisation

The High Court ruling means the two girls, who are aged four and 10, must now be given the jab.

Mr Justice Sumner also ruled that the girls should be immunised against other diseases, including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, and meningitis.

The children's best interests are served by receiving a programme of immunisations   Mr Justice Sumner   The ruling explained

His decision could have implications for other parents across the UK, who are similarly divided over whether their children should receive the MMR vaccine.

It is understood that in both of these cases the mothers are against their children being given the three-in-one vaccine because of concerns over its safety.

Studies have suggested the jab may be linked to autism and bowel disease. However, these claims have been dismissed by doctors and the government, who all insist it is safe.

Experts have also warned that a drop in vaccine rates could lead to a resurgence in measles, a highly contagious illness that can cause pneumonia, brain damage, dementia and death.

Mr Justice Sumner ruled that it was in the girls' best interests to be given the three-in-one jab.

He rejected the idea of giving the girls separate vaccinations against mumps, measles or rubella, saying that the gap between jabs could put them at risk of getting these diseases.

Both girls in this case live alone with their mothers. Their parents are either divorced or separated.

None of the people involved in the case can be identified for legal reasons.

Medical evidence

Mr Justice Sumner said his decision was influenced by evidence given by medical experts.

He indicated that he had considered the ruling carefully.

We are very concerned. We feel at the very least parents should have the right to choose single vaccines   Jackie Fletcher, JABS

"There are considerations which have weighed heavily with me," he said.

"I accept a parent's right to choose whether they accept medical advice to have immunisation for their children or not."

But he added: "Recognising the anxieties of the mothers and that an adverse decision will be upsetting, the children's best interests are served by receiving a programme of immunisations and an order should be made."

Meanwhile, doctors attending a British Medical Association conference in London criticised the way their income is linked to MMR uptake.

They passed a motion of no confidence in the chief medical officers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Uptake of the MMR jab has fallen in recent years because of concern among parents about its safety. This has caused some GPs to lose out financially.

Dr Hamish Meldrum of the BMA said the current link with GP pay meant patients didn't trust their medical advice.

"The call for resignation was very much about the payment system which we believe is working against government policy for MMR.

"It is now counter-productive and affecting patients' trust in their doctor's reasons for advocating MMR."

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "The chief medical officers have met individually with GP leaders on several occasions and indicated their willingness to discuss using the target payments more effectively, in a way that meets GP concerns and encourages even higher uptake levels, protecting children from potential life-threatening diseases."

Ruling backed

Nevertheless, the BMA backed the High Court ruling. A spokeswoman said: "Where there is no agreement, it is sometimes necessary to take the matter to court. The court will always act in the best interest of the child."

That view was backed by Liberal Democrat health spokesman Dr Evan Harris.

"On the rare occasions that there is parental disagreement, it is right that the courts should decide based on the best interests of the children concerned," he said.

But Jackie Fletcher of the campaign group JABS expressed concern following the ruling.

"We are very concerned. We feel at the very least parents should have the right to choose single vaccines," she said.

"I don't think anything should be forced into this."