In WSP (A Child), Re (Vaccination: Religious Objection, (EWHC (Family), Oct. 23, 2023), a British trial court rejected a claim by a Muslim mother that her rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights were being violating when the state insisted on routine vaccinations for her 9-month old son who, because of the mother's mental health condition, was in custody of the state. According to the court, the mother contended:
... [T]he use of animal products or animal testing in the production of the vaccines means that some (but not all) Muslims consider their use to be 'haram' (forbidden).... She is concerned that, if vaccinated, WSP would suffer emotional or psychological harm. If he does something haram without repenting, 'this would take him out of the fold of Islam, as he would not have adhered to the rulings of God made for people'. It would be harmful for him to have to repent for something he had no control over.... He may feel guilty and confused. He may question why his mother or grandparents did not stop the immunisations. He may also question his religion and his place within the family and/ or community if he has not allowed the same religious observances as others....
The court concluded in part:
... [I]n the absence of cogent, objective evidence of harm to his welfare, the mother's objections on religious grounds do not otherwise outweigh WSP's welfare interests in receiving the vaccinations.... Her religious objections must be given respect.... However, those religious views do not carry more weight the more strongly they are held or the more forcefully they are expressed.... Given my conclusion that the welfare reasons the mother has put forward do not outweigh WSP's interests in receiving the vaccines, the fact of her objection, even on well-founded religious grounds and however strongly expressed, takes the matter no further. WSP's welfare is the paramount consideration and the mother's objection is inconsistent with his welfare. The fact her objection is founded on her religious beliefs does not constitute a trump card that overrides what is otherwise in his best interests.
Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.
