Parental Responsibility: The Merits of Adopting a Softer Approach to Vaccination of a Child ?
本篇中譯自Oxford University Press授權繁體中文
在雙親責任下的兒童疫苗接種H（Re H）一案中，上訴法院裁定，疫苗接種並非「重大」或「嚴重」醫療。其並認定由地方當局照顧的兒童，不再需要法院授權同意及安排疫苗接種。此是因為已有醫學上的有力證據支持疫苗接種的優勢。故而適當參考1989年兒童法第33(3)(b)條，並在考慮相應比例的同時，亦特別根據《歐洲人權公約》第8條，對父母尊重私人與家庭生活權利作出符合比例之反應。法院認為疫苗接種符合兒童的最大利益。本評論支持這一判決，但也指出在對受照料兒童和未受照料兒童採用的方法中，存在輕微預期異常。解決此二分法在於擴展King L. J. 於這種狀況下的做法範圍。
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 authorization 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.