Top court's vaccine decision should be read correctly

Mother Halime Sare Aysal and father Mustafa Aysal did not want to have their newborn baby vaccinated with the vaccines the Health Ministry defines as "compulsory." 

The U?ak Provincial Directorate of the Family and Social Policies Ministry took the couple to court in 2012. The ministry demanded a court order so that the couple's child would be vaccinated.

The Court of First Instance decided in favor of the ministry, in other words for the child to be vaccinated, but the Aysals challenged the court's decision at the U?ak Family Court. The second court acknowledged the couple at the beginning of 2013 and lifted the first court's decision.

Right at that stage, the Aysals submitted their individual application to the Constitutional Court. 

The Constitutional Court accepted the application and took it to its general assembly to be debated. On Nov. 11 the court ruled in favor of the Aysals. The justified decision was posted on the court's website the other day, thus enabling us to discuss it. 

This decision unfortunately, was covered in newspapers and news sites with titles "Baby shots ruled against the constitution." When I read the decision, I saw that it was not exactly like this. 

Unfortunately, in our country a debate, which was imported - with much delay - from the United States, is being held over these compulsory vaccines. Generations who never met smallpox or the measles thanks to these vaccines they received are seriously considering not having their children vaccinated. According to press reports, there are reported incidents from U?ak, S?vas, Konya and Elaz??, showing that this anti-vaccine stance is quite widespread.

When we look at the decision of the Constitutional Court, this decision can, under...