In Re H (A Child) (Parental Responsibility: Vaccination), the Court of Appeal decided that vaccination did not represent ‘grave’ or ‘serious’ medical treatment and determined that, in the case of a child under the care of a Local Authority, court authorisation for consent to and arrangement of vaccination is no longer required. This is due to the strong medical evidence in support of vaccination. Thus, with due reference to 33(3)(b) Children Act 1989 and while considering proportionality and, particularly, the proportionate response to interference with the parents’ right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court held that vaccination is in line with the best interests of the child. This commentary supports this judgment but identifies a slight prospective anomaly in the approach adopted to children in care and those who are not in care. The resolution of this dichotomy lies in broadening the scope of King LJ’s approach in this case.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press; All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
- Best interests
- Local Authority
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine (miscellaneous)