Mothers lose MMR jabs appeal

Two mothers today lost a legal bid to stop their daughters being forcibly injected with the controversial MMR vaccine.

Judges at the Appeal Court rejected their claims and denounced one expert opposing MMR as "presenting junk science". The mothers claimed the jab, which they strongly oppose, would traumatise their children, aged 10 and four.

In a landmark ruling last month the children's fathers, both separated from the mothers, won the right to enforce their vaccination.

But the mothers went back to court, where their lawyers argued that the High Court judge who made the ruling wrongly weighed the medical evidence.

Today, however, the Appeal Court dismissed their claims, ruling the original judge's approach "was above criticism".

Lord Justice Sedley went on to say that claims that the vaccination was dangerous and unnecessary were "untenable".

He described one expert's report as "turning out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own views - not to mince words ... it was junk science".

Opponents of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella claim there is a possible link to autism and bowel disease, and it could overload the immune system. After listening to medical evidence from supporters and opponents of the jab, High Court judge Mr Justice Sumner had ruled in favour of the fathers. Today all three Appeal Court judges agreed, calling his decision "conscientious and comprehensive".

Lawyers are considering an appeal to the House of Lords.

The mothers of both children-known as A and B, - none of the parties can be identified - have raised the girls alone and are bitterly estranged from the fathers.

The mother of the four-yearold, a trainee midwife in her late thirties, was said to be suffering stress over the issue. She met the girl's American father on holiday in the US and after their split was said to share a close bond with her daughter.

The court heard the 10-yearolddid not want the MMR jab but would agree to it "to keep the peace". During the earlier High Court hearing her views were discounted because the judge feared she may have been influenced by her mother.

The court also heard the 10-year-old's father was jailed for attempting to rape a girl and indecent assault before he met the child's mother. Mr Justice Sumner deemed that irrelevant to the current case.