The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Judge orders kids b vaccinated, parents are at odds with each other over consent  (Read 659 times)

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7442

I can relate to this as we nearly came to divorce over whether or not to make our grandchildren submit to vaccination. For some strange reason my husband felt that they should be vaccinated and I said to him "well if you feel this way why didn't you say so when our own children were babies?" He claimed that he had "matured" since then. I used the logic that if we couldn't agree, we should just not do it and then if they themselves felt differently when they were older they could always get the vaccination, but once it had been done, it could never be taken away. He reluctantly agreed, but I think he is still sort of sulking about it.

Surely there is a lot of disagreement over something like between couples. What do you think?  I wonder how many couples actually argue over vaccinations for their kids.  It seems that this is a subject that people feel quite strongly about.  Come to think of it, when my own kids were young, I just made the decision not to vaccinate all on my own and assumed that my husband agreed.  I did tell him about it and he didn't object, so I assumed .....  Perhaps I should have talked more about it to him and found out what he really thought.  Again, come to think of it, it was probably a case of him "reluctantly accepting my decision".  Not exactly fair.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456878/Sisters-refuse-MMR-jab-despite-judge-ordering-vaccinated-divorced-parents-fight-inoculation.html

Two sisters ordered by a High Court judge to have the MMR jab are refusing the vaccination.

The girls, aged 11 and 15, were last month told by Mrs Justice Theis they must have the inoculation against measles, mumps and rubella.

Last night their mother’s solicitor told The Mail on Sunday the girls had no plans to agree to be vaccinated. The legal deadline was Friday night.

Ruling: The children, aged 11 and 15, were told it was 'in their best interests' to have the vaccine despite telling the court they didn't want it

Philippa Dolan said the mother might go to a higher court in a bid to overturn the judgment.

She said: ‘One of the interesting aspects of this case is the question of taking two healthy people and forcing them to submit to a medical procedure which they don’t want to submit to.’

She said the judge had failed to take into account the ‘practical difficulties’ of ensuring the sisters were vaccinated.

‘I think the judge was hoping that it would not be an issue,’ said Ms Dolan.

Physically forcing the girls to have the jabs was ‘a legal grey area’ and Ms Dolan said: ‘I can’t envisage it happening.’

The case seeking vaccination was brought by their father, who separated from their mother in 2011. They are now divorced.

Concern: The girls' mother, named only as Mrs F, doesn't want them to have the inoculation because she fears side effects

While married the parents agreed not to have their daughters vaccinated after a controversial report by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998 suggested a link between the jab and autism. It led to MMR vaccination rates tumbling.

Wakefield’s report was later discredited, with the General Medical Council branding his research ‘dishonest’ in 2010.

Following a large measles outbreak in Swansea last year the father changed his mind over the jab and took the case to court.

Mrs Justice Theis heard that neither girl wanted the jab, with their mother saying they would be ‘traumatised’ if forced to have it.

The father told the court he had been a ‘reluctant participant’ in the decision not to vaccinate the girls.
Logged

MamaLiberty

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25985
  • Non aggression, self ownership
    • The Price of Liberty

Obviously, it's a control issue, not a medical one. The girls are quite safe from autism at this age, so it's far less of a threat. They should actually have a blood titer drawn to establish whether or not these girls have already had these infections and developed a natural immunity. Many children have, and the vaccination is pointless then. The exception is Rubella, if they've not had it. They can get a mild case any time, and if they are either pregnant themselves, or expose other pregnant women to the infection, it can cause serious birth defects.  The vaccine for that has proven quite effective, and should be available alone.

The custodial parents should, of course, have full control of this, but we know they don't.
Logged
The lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil.
Pages: [1]   Go Up