By Heather Callaghan, Editor
This is a true story. As crazy as it may seem, this actually happened. A vegan mother who chose not to vaccinate, based on animal-based vaccine ingredients, was ordered by the UK High Court recently to have her two sons vaccinated.
This is not a first for the High Court. In 2013, in a very similar incident, and mother was forced to vaccinate her two daughters with an MMR shot.
How did this happen?
Judge Mark Rogers sided with the father’s petition, when he bent the court’s ear about the mother’s beliefs.
[…]the father applied for a court order to get his sons vaccinated, citing the safety of his children first and calling the mother “obsessive, overprotective and narrow in her views.”
He told the court she had “a suspicion of all conventional medicine” and used an example of her not allowing the children to take paracetamol-based medicine, like Calpol [like Tylenol], specifically designed for children.
Rogers who ordered the boys, ages two and four to receive diphtheria, polio, meningitis, measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.
I am truly sorry that the mother will regard the decision as wrong, but my objective duty is clear.
I have serious concerns as to (the mother’s) ability to look objectively and even-handedly.
He noted that the mother was unable to find a doctor to appear in front of the court to support her views and cited the UK’s Children’s Act of 1989 which apparently allows courts to “overrule a parent” for the “welfare” of a child. The issue of vaccines does not appear in any of the headings for the Children’s Act.
The mother’s views are facts
The mother wanted her sons to be free from toxic ingredients found in vaccines (aluminum, formaldehyde are just a couple). Especially animal-based ingredients such as bovine extract, (monkey kidney) cell culture, lactose, gelatin, and mouse serum protein to name a few.
She told the court that her older son had “suffered side effects including cradle cap, a persistent cough and eczema as a result” of vaccinations.
But the father made it appear that she was paranoid and had the upper hand since the courts typically defer to the State establishment and not the best interests of children or family.