x infinity!!!
Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES
by skeeter1 168 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
skeeter1
Hosted by Back to Google News</form> High court clarifies rights of minors to make medical decisionsBy THE CANADIAN PRESS – 5 hours ago
OTTAWA — A young Jehovah's Witness who challenged a Manitoba law that forced a blood transfusion on her won a partial victory and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs at the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday.
The court ruled that the law in question is constitutional, but said in cases of a dispute about medical treatment, judges must offer children under 16 a chance to demonstrate their competence to make medical choices.
The law gave minors under 16 no say in medical treatment, but the 6-1 decision said courts must take into account the maturity and decision-making capacity of such minors before ruling on enforced treatment.
"Given the significance we attach to bodily integrity, it would be arbitrary to assume that no one under the age of 16 has the capacity to make medical treatment decisions," Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority. "It is not, however, arbitrary to give them the opportunity to prove that they have sufficient maturity to do so."
She added: "A young person is entitled to a degree of decisional autonomy commensurate with his or her maturity."
The case involved a young Jehovah's Witness, identified only as A.C., who received a court-ordered blood transfusion in 2006.
She was 14 when she was admitted to the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg with internal bleeding as a complication of Crohn's Disease, an incurable condition which can be eased through surgery and drugs.
Doctors ordered a blood transfusion, but A.C. and her parents refused on religious grounds because they believe the Bible forbids ingesting blood.
Child-welfare officials moved to take her into care and a court ordered that she be given the transfusion. The judge said he was satisfied she was competent, but followed the letter of the law since she was under 16.
Abella said mature minors should be given a chance to show they are capable of making medical decisions, although the courts can still override them in life-or-death cases.
Lawyer David Day, who represented A.C., said she is elated by the ruling.
"For 38 months, my client, a remarkable young woman, has been looking for respect in the Canadian courts for her medical treatment wishes," said Day, who has pleaded Jehovah's Witness medical cases for more than 20 years.
"Today, she got respect."
He said the forced transfusion was a blow to her.
"Miss A.C. felt in April of 2006 when she was transfused on three occasions as if she had been 'violated,' as if she had been 'raped,' because her bodily integrity was violated."
He said Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I. and Yukon routinely give minors a say in treatment. The other provinces and territories have laws similar to the Manitoba statute and will have to heed this decision.
The decision says laws can't set arbitrary ages as a cutoff in cases where minors object to medical treatment. But judges must weigh age and maturity on a sliding scale balanced against the imminence and gravity of the threat on a case-by-case basis.
Although A.C. lost her constitutional argument, she won her costs.
"While A.C. has technically lost her constitutional challenge, she successfully argued that the provisions should be interpreted in a way that allows an adolescent under the age of 16 to demonstrate sufficient maturity to have a particular medical treatment decision respected," Abella wrote.
"In these circumstances, it seems to me appropriate that since this is the major impact of these reasons, she should be awarded her costs."
Day said he didn't know how much this case cost, but said a similar case 15 years ago racked up $450,000 in legal bills.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote a concurring decision with different reasons, while Justice Ian Binnie dissented, saying the law is unconstitutional and that mature minors should be allowed to make medical decisions, period.
Day said Binnie's opinion jibed with what A.C. had argued.
Several similar refusals of medical treatment by Jehovah's Witnesses have made headlines in recent years. But this is the first time the top court has weighed in.
-
skeeter1
Girl's forced blood transfusion didn't violate rights: top court
Manitoba must pay her legal costs, estimated above $450,000
Last Updated: Friday, June 26, 2009 | 4:19 PM ET Comments499Recommend199
CBC News
The 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness, identified only as A.C., who said her rights were violated when she was forced to have a blood transfusion.(CBC)
Canada's top court on Friday dismissed the case of a Manitoba girl — a Jehovah's Witness — who said her rights were violated when she was forced to get a blood transfusion against her will when she was a minor.
In a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that such medical interventions are constitutionally sound, striking a balance between the choice of the child and the state's protection of the child.
However, the ruling also said lower courts from now on must consider the maturity and decision-making skills of minors before deciding on enforced treatment.
"The more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a truly mature and independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greater the weight that must be given to his or her views when a court is exercising its discretion" regarding the best interests of the child, said Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for the majority.
"If, after a careful analysis of the young person's ability to exercise mature and independent judgment, the court is persuaded that the necessary level of maturity exists, the young person's views ought to be respected."
The court stressed that this in no way means that a child should be allowed to make a decision that might endanger his or her life.
"I don't want to die, which is why I went to the hospital for treatment. I just wanted the best medical treatment without blood …" the young woman, who is now 18, told CBC.
"There almost are no words to say just how brutal of an act [blood transfusion] is. I once compared it to almost being raped. There are no options for you, there's nothing you can do about it and it's very hard to deal with."
Lawyer David Day speaks to media in Ottawa on Friday regarding the Supreme Court of Canada ruling.(Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
David Day, the girl's lawyer, called the ruling a huge moral victory.
"For the past 38 months, my client … has been looking for respect in the Canadian courts for her medical treatment wishes. Today, she got respect," he told CBC.
They argued her case so convincingly that the Supreme Court awarded her costs so she doesn't have to pay for the pricey legal action. Instead, the government of Manitoba will have to pay her legal costs, which are reported to be at least $450,000.
"There aren't necessarily any winners or losers in a situation like this," Claudia Ash-Ponce of Manitoba Child and Family Services told CBC.
"We acted [in] protecting the best interests of the child and, in this case, the highest court … upheld our action and endorsed our legislation."
With regard to the court's direction to consider the maturity of children in future cases, Ash-Ponce said that is already being done.
Claudia Ash-Ponce, of Manitoba Child and Family Services, said her agency worked in the best interests of the child. (CBC)
"We've always as a province acted in a way that considers the wishes and desires of the child, whether they're over or under 16. We do hold that in high regard and it is an important piece that even in this case was considered."
The then-14-year-old Jehovah's Witness, identified only as A.C., received a court-ordered blood transfusion in 2006 at a Winnipeg hospital to treat internal bleeding from her bowel associated with Crohn's disease.
The girl and her parents opposed the transfusion, based on their religious belief that the Bible forbids ingesting blood.
A.C. had signed an advanced medical directive stating she didn't want a blood transfusion. Three psychiatrists who assessed her all concluded she understood her medical condition and the consequences of not getting a transfusion.
Under Manitoba law, people under the age of 16 can be given medical treatment against their will.
Believing the girl's life to be at risk, doctors contacted Child and Family Services, which deemed A.C. to be "a child in need of protection." After lawyers for the child welfare agency obtained an order from Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench, the girl was given three units of blood.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal had also unanimously upheld the imposed transfusion
-
skeeter1
Teen cannot refuse blood transfusion, top court rules
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service June 26, 2009 Comments (1) The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a Manitoba law that denied an ill teenager the right to refuse a blood transfusion, even though she said it violated her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness.
Photograph by: Geoff Robins, AFP/Getty Images
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a Manitoba law that denied an ill teenager the right to refuse a blood transfusion, even though she said it violated her religious beliefs as a devout Jehovah's Witness.
By a 6-1 margin, the court concluded that the legal tenet of the "best interests of the child" must be the overriding principle in deciding whether mature children under 16 have the right to make their own medical decisions.
The ruling involves a Winnipeg girl, identified only as A.C., who was almost 15 years old when she was apprehended by child welfare authorities and forced to undergo a blood transfusion that she compared to "being raped and violated."
The procedure kicked off an intense legal dispute over the rights of "mature minors" when stacked against the competing interest of the state in protecting children.
Legal clashes over court-ordered blood transfusions and other medical treatments have played out nationwide and the Supreme Court's judgment set guidelines on when older children are capable of making their own calls.
"It is a sliding scale of scrutiny, with the adolescent's views becoming increasingly determinative depending on his or her ability to exercise mature, independent judgment," wrote Justice Rosalie Abella.
"The more serious the nature of the decision, and the more severe its potential impact on the life or health of the child, the greater the degree of scrutiny that will be required."
Unlike some provinces, Manitoba's child welfare laws do not make exceptions for "mature minors" — older children under age 16 who are deemed capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their medical decisions.
The majority judgment all but rules out the possibility of mature minors refusing life-saving treatment, regardless of their maturity. Judges, when making decisions in such cases, would be hard-pressed to side with a child's decision, said the ruling.
The decision no longer applies to A.C., who is now 18 years old. She has since moved to Ontario.
The court rejected A.C.'s argument that the forced transfusion, violated her charter rights to religious freedom, equality, and life, liberty and security of the person.
A.C. is described in a court document as a top, award-winning student who is bilingual, loves to read Jane Austen and John Grisham, and suffers from Crohn's disease, a chronic, incurable disease that inflames the intestinal tract.
Two years ago, A.C. was admitted to hospital to be treated for bleeding of her bowel.
After she refused a transfusion because it is forbidden in her religion, her doctor informed Winnipeg Child and Family Services, who immediately apprehended her from her parents, who are also Jehovah's Witnesses.
Child welfare authorities obtained a judge's approval for a transfusion after satisfying him that A.C. was in immediate danger of death or serious injury.
A.C. contends that children's services did not have the "right or obligation" to interfere, just as her parents did not have the right because she had the capacity to make her own decision.
"Having someone else's blood pumping through my veins, stressing my body, caused me to reflect on how my rights over my body had been taken away by a judge who did not care enough to talk with me,'' she wrote in a 2006 affidavit filed in the Supreme Court.
"That day, my tears flowed non-stop. Nothing can properly describe how I was feeling and still feel today. I could liken it to being raped and violated but even those words do not express my feelings strong enough.''
A.C. says she had the right to pursue other medical treatment that respected her religious conscience, including iron pumped into her body intravenously to help it produce red blood cells.
A.C.'s lawyers say that Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon all permit capable persons of any age to decided their own medical treatment without state interference.
The teen brought the case to the Supreme Court after losing in the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
-
purplesofa
I hope she is grateful to be alive.
-
Rabbit
'Alive'... is a damn good thing. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
-
wobble
I wonder how it will be possible to get the courts to see that whether a JW is young or not, they cannot make an informed decision on this matter as a lot of pertinent information has been witheld from them. they have only seen the WT explanation of this false doctrine on blood.
Their decision too is NOT a medical one, it is a religious one, so should anybody be allowed to decide medical matters based on religious beliefs that they have not been allowed to consider or test in any way ?
If someone truly believes their decision is right after all sides of the argument have been presented to them ,then maybe they should. But no Jehovah's Witness should be allowed to make such a decision when they are not sufficiently informed.
Love
Wobble
-
truthsetsonefree
Well Wobble, one step at a time. The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they do grind. This is big! It's one thing for lower courts to give court orders in individual cases. That's been happening for years. But a Supreme Court in ANY Western land making a decision like this will introduce precedent. WT prides itself in Supreme Court victories. Now it has a loss to ponder. No appeals. This will trickle down for sure into other Canadian cases. I wonder how it will affect the Hughes case....
-
Chalam
I hope she is grateful to be alive.
Obviously not now she has to pay all that money back ;)
All the best,
Stephen
-
skeeter1
She never had to pay the money back. The WTS likely paid for her own lawyer, this Mr. Day. Mr. Day has appeared in almost every JW blood case in Canada. He is quite friendly with the JWs, though I don't know if he is one or not. Abviously, the WTS is a BIG client of his.
