Two mothers were yesterday ordered to ensure their daughters were given the controversial measles, mumps and rubella vaccine after tug-of-love disputes with the girls' fathers.
Mr Justice Christopher Sumner determined that the children's best interests were served by having the three-in-one jabs because the benefits outweighed the risks.
He was ruling on two separate cases where the fathers wanted their daughters to be immunised despite the opposition of the girls' unmarried mothers.
He said the high court judgment should not be seen as a blanket legal endorsement for immunisation programmes. Other legal action is being taken by parents who claim their children's autism is linked to the MMR jab.
Mr Justice Sumner's decision was welcomed by the British Medical Association but criticised by Jabs, a campaign group fighting for the right of parents to choose single vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.
Meanwhile, GPs meeting in London maintained the profession's hostility towards incentive payments for practices to ensure children are immunised against these and other diseases. They said they should not be financially penalised if parents, after being informed of the benefits of MMR, decided not to have their children vaccinated.
If 90% of children registered with a practice are vaccinated against a range of childhood diseases, each GP receives £2,865 a year, and if 70% are immunised, they receive £995. The doctors said the system had helped lead to a lack of parental confidence in the vaccine, and added the chief medical officers in the four countries of the UK should resign over the government's "lamentable failure" to persuade the public of its safety.
The GPs however did not call for official BMA policy to endorse the alternative of single jabs because of lack of evidence about their safety and effectiveness.
Uptake of the MMR jab, which was introduced in 1988, has fallen significantly in recent years because of safety doubts expressed by a small number of researchers. The government and medical establishment, including the BMA, still believe it is the safest option. Alternative separate vaccines are not available on the NHS.
Only 81% of two-year-olds in Britain now have the triple jab while take-up of other childhood jabs runs at well over 90%. In London, fewer than 73% of two-year-olds have the MMR jab. Four years of rows about MMR, including whether Tony Blair's son Leo had the jab, have taken their toll, although the government constantly attacks the media for promoting scare stories about the vaccine.
The girls in the high court cases were aged four and 10. They lived with their mothers but their fathers had "parental responsibility" orders giving them a say in their child's welfare.
The judge said the older child was against the MMR jab. "Her views were influenced by her mother's unrea soning and rigid approach. As she will accept the court's decision I largely discount her concerns.
"C is too young at four to have her wishes taken into account."
He said both mothers were devoted and did what they believed was in their child's best interests but this conflicted with the medical evidence. "Where parents are in agreement that their child shall not be vaccinated, the law and doctors respect their view. It is not compulsory and no local authority, doctors, school or other agency would in ordinary circumstances apply to the court for a contrary decision."
But Mr Justice Sumner said: "Recognising the anxieties of the mothers and that an adverse situation will be upsetting, the children's best interests are served by receiving a programme of immunisations." The children would also have to be protected against other diseases.
Jackie Fletcher, of the campaign group Jabs, said that at the very least parents should have the option of choosing single vaccines and not be forced into having their children vaccinated against their wishes. "With a choice, you might find more compromise."
