World Immunisation Month

World Immunisation Month is a useful opportunity to recognise the importance of vaccination for protecting children, families and wider communities against serious and preventable illnesses. Vaccinations are one of the most effective public health measures available, helping to prevent disease in all people directly and indirectly via herd immunity. Routine vaccinations have helped to reduce and eliminate once common and dangerous diseases, but these can return if vaccination rates fall. Before being released to the public, they undergo rigorous testing to ensure they are safe to administer with limited side effects. Vaccine and their manufacturers are subject to licensing and regulatory approval to ensure licensed and approved by the state to ensure compliance with safety standards, protecting public health from hazardous products.

The main legal issue that can arise in relation to childhood vaccination is who has the authority to make the decision. This is most prominent where parents disagree or the child is in the care of the local authority. If one person with parental responsibility wishes to vaccinate their child (e.g. the mother) and another disagrees (e.g. the father who has acquired parental responsibility), the dispute may need to be settled in court. Section 2(7) of the Children Act 1989 gives each person with parental responsibility the ability to act alone and without the others; this is necessary where decisions must be urgently taken and it is not reasonable to wait for a response. However, hotly contested issues of immunisation are part of the pool of judicially created exceptions to this rule, requiring agreement. 

In child law, it is important to always act in the best interests of the child and make sure they and their health are at the heart of all decision-making, rather than refusing vaccinations based on moral or philosophical objections. Vaccinations are usually seen to be in the best interests of a child; if a court order requiring vaccination is considered an interference with Article 8 ECHR rights, this is permitted as a proportional interference to defend against the disease and protect the greater population. However, due to the non-interventionist principle, if the parents are in agreement the court will not intervene and enforce medical treatment, except in cases where a failure to vaccinate would be life-threatening or likely to cause serious harm.

Care orders cause a child to become a ‘looked after child’ and cause the local authority to acquire parental responsibility. Where a child is in the care of the local authority, no court permission is required to vaccinate them, even if the parents refuse to grant consent. This is because the prevailing medical opinion states that it is in the best medical interests of children to be vaccinated in accordance with the guidance of Public Health England. Where a child is under parental care, continually failing to vaccinate could suggest a pattern of neglect and support wider threshold allegations. This demonstrates the importance of parents making sure their children have the most up-to-date vaccinations, promoting their health and wellbeing.