Vaccinations have been mandatory in this country in about the 1850s. A movement of aristocrats and working and middle classes rose to fight it and eventually the authorities had to allow for personal choice and liberty.
It is amazing how strong our ancestors were in their fight against authority and for freedom and choice. Nowadays it is mainly educated middle class people who are in some way anti vaccine and the opposition to vaccines is nowhere near as strong as it once was.
'A number of distinctive features of the anti-vaccination movement emerge from Durbach's fascinating account. She reveals the movement's cross-class character: though some of its leading figures were derived from the upper classes, its activists were largely drawn from the lower middle and respectable working classes (women as well as men). The anti-vaccinationists' rejection of government and medical coercion in relation to health reflected a wider suspicion of state intervention in personal and family affairs. Activists were often also religious dissenters, trade unionists and radicals; they were opponents of vivisection, and supporters of temperance, vegetarianism and alternative medicine. As well as being an effective parliamentary lobby, anti-vaccinationism was a militant mass movement, given to carnivalesque demonstrations and riotous protests.
Here the differences between the nineteenth century movement and contemporary anti-vaccination campaigns are more striking than the superficial parallels noted by Durbach. Though today's anti-vaccinationist campaigns get some support from quirky aristocrats, their base of support is almost exclusively middle class. Activists object to particular vaccines (in Britain mainly MMR, in the USA mainly those containing mercury). They have no objection to state intervention in any other area and, though some favour homeopathy or other alternative therapies, many seek to justify their concerns about vaccine safety with reference to mainstream medical science. Indeed some of the most prominent campaigns are careful to point out that they are not' anti-vaccine' but simply concerned to promote 'informed choice' by parents. However disingenuous this posture may be, it reflects the general defensiveness of current campaigns and the limited scope of their resistance to medical authority. In contrast with the collective campaigns of the past, today's have a strongly individualistic character. Rather than demanding the abandonment of the national immunization programme, they merely request the choice of mercury-free vaccines, or single agents rather than MMR. Campaigns?in reality little more than websites run by a few individuals?provide information (often misleading) and contact details for solicitors pursuing compensation claims for alleged vaccine injuries.'
The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England 1853-1907
But occasionally there are still some calls for mandatory vaccinations from some quarters. However, the authorities are not in favour of those calls today. It is possible that their experience of the 1850s - 1890s is one reason why.
'But in the UK vaccination programmes have relied on persuading and educating parents that immunisation is not only beneficial to their children but to society as a whole.
The BBC has learned, however, through a freedom of information request that the strategic health authority in London asked the government if it could introduce compulsory vaccinations.
Specifically the SHA asked about the "feasibility of requiring an immunisation certificate for measles before children go to school."
In documents seen by the BBC, the Department of Health acknowledges that immunisation rates in London are consistently lower than the rest of the country.
But officials said: "Our strategy is to maintain a voluntary immunisation system and invest efforts in educating parents about the benefits of vaccination and dispelling 'myths' about vaccine safety."
'But, although he sympathises with Sir Sandy's concerns about the possibility of a measles epidemic, Professor Finn believes compulsory vaccination would be counter-productive.
"There is a real risk we would end up with less MMR immunisation not more," he said.
"I think this would be handing a gift to the anti-vaccine lobby, because they would say 'look they can't persuade you it is right, so they are going to have to force you'."
But as fears of a measles epidemic grow, serious questions are now being asked as to whether persuasion on its own is enough.'
Call to make MMR jab mandatory