Mock Q: Lack of parental consent re. child, non-life threat

Ok, so I'm pretty clear on what I would do if, as was hypothesized in a previous thread, a three year old's parents didn't want him or her to receive life saving blood transfusions because of their religious convictions. However, I came across the following question, which is a similar but perhaps fundamentally different problem:

"A 'new-age' mother comes in with her infant child for a scheduled visit. You discuss the standard vaccination schedule for infants. The mother informs you she does not want her child to be vaccinated. She is part of a group that says ("knows") vaccines are "bad" and only damage children. She believes that her child's immune system will take care of any viruses and does not see the need for vaccines. Thus, she refuses to have her child vaccinated. What do you do?"

As in the blood transfusion situation, the parents' wishes do not conform to the those generally held by society and, while they have every right to express their autonomy in relation to themselves, the do not possess the right to impose their "different" (for lack of a better word) values on an individual (their child) who has never been competent. However, refusing to have an infant vaccinated, while it may lead to impairment or even death of the child in the future, does not have an immediate negative effect on the child. Since it is not a matter of immediate life and death, does a doctor have an obligation, or even the legal right, to go through legal channels and fight for his or her patient's (the child's) best health interests?

Cheers