Compulsory vaccinations could be justified by the crisis of parental irresponsibility

Half a million children in the UK are at risk of measles because they have not been vaccinated, according to Unicef, the UN agency, last month, and the problem is getting worse.

Hence the campaign by Matt Hancock, the health secretary, to persuade parents to vaccinate their children, which we report today. “Those who have promoted the anti-vaccination myth are morally reprehensible, deeply irresponsible and have blood on their hands,” he said.

He is right. The risks from the side-effects of immunisation are small in relation to the real and life-threatening risks of measles and other diseases. This is more true now that it is less possible to rely on herd immunity – the principle that, as long as nearly everyone else is immunised, the risk from not being immunised is low.

And, while it is not possible to prove a negative, it is as clear as it can be that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, as was irresponsibly claimed by Andrew Wakefield, the discredited former doctor. The Independent is proud of its role in countering his unethical campaign to spread misinformation.

Unfortunately, Mr Wakefield’s efforts are now part of a wider anti-vaxx movement that has been turbocharged by the ability of social media to spread quackery and conspiracy theories.

Mr Hancock is to be praised, therefore, for taking the issue seriously. Fortunately, deaths from measles in the UK are still very rare, but the threat is real. Inevitably, the health secretary was asked in his interview this morning if he thought vaccination should be compulsory. He said: “I don’t want to reach the point of compulsory vaccination. I said I’ll rule nothing out, but I don’t want to reach that point. I don’t think we’re near there.”

This is the right approach. While The Independent is committed to the principles of liberalism, vaccination is one of those difficult questions on which a balance has to be struck. Even John Stuart Mill would recognise that one parent’s liberty to decide their child should not be vaccinated might clash with another child’s right not to suffer a life-changing illness.

But, as Mr Hancock said, we are not yet at the point where the state has to intervene to force children to be vaccinated against their parents’ wishes. Max Davie of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that the government should first tackle “the administrative and resource problems resulting from the split of public health to local authorities”.

It may be that a renewed public information campaign, and a more rigorous logistical focus, is what is needed to put immunisation rates back on an upward trajectory. Mr Hancock should devote his attention to the nuts and bolts of good administration before considering drastic, illiberal measures. But he is quite right not to rule them out.