{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016897081413210446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.922727272727273, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Best to Agree to Disagree? Parental Discord, Children's Rights and the Question of Immunization

In the context of proxy consent to treatment of children by their parents, this article analyses the effect of parental decisions on the specific issue of not to immunize, and the approach taken by courts where there is parental disagreement on the question of immunization. The article has three distinct sections. The first looks at compulsory immunization, the second examines the situation where parents agree to immunize (or not), and the third asks what the approach of the courts is where parents disagree on an immunization policy. It is argued that the approach taken by the Irish courts is one which overly emphasizes the parental decision. By contrast, courts in England and Wales defer to medical opinion. Comparison is made between the two jurisdictions to establish what each jurisdiction can learn from the other in terms of moving forward on the question of immunization. It is ultimately argued that where there is parental disagreement, a child-centric approach should be taken which takes due regard of the parental interest and medical opinions, but where, in the final analysis, a decision on immunization is made on the basis of a true examination of the best interests of the child.