I when to many 'meetings' at the KH as a study, and I also watched the dvd the WTBTS use to premote their No Blood Propaganda, But I dont remember anything being said about how legal it is to refuse blood for minors in our own country! in Australia their are laws in place to protect children from the 'religious claims' of their parents in life threatening situations.... are there lwas like this where you live???
(i) Minors
In all Australian jurisdictions, there is legislation which permits particular forms of treatment for minors without parental consent[2]. In Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory blood transfusions may be given without parental consent if the child is in danger of death without the treatment[3]. In Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory two doctors must agree that it is impracticable to delay the transfusion as the child may die without it but in Western Australia and Queensland, it is sufficient that the blood transfusion is necessary to preserve the life of the child and no second opinion is required[4].
In the Northern Territory, the Emergency Medical Operations Act 1973 (NT): ss. 2 and 3 authorises an emergency operation (which includes a blood transfusion) on a child without parental consent if it is not reasonably practicable to delay the operation until parental consent is obtained and teo doctors believe that the patient is in danger of dying or of sufferring a serious permianent disability. In South Australia, the Consent to Medical and Dental Procedures Act 1985 (SA): ss. 6(2), (3), (5), (6) dispenses with the need for consent if the emergency procedure is required to meet an imminent risk to the life or health of the child although a second opinion should be taken unless this is not reasonably practicable. In New South Wales, the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 (NSW): s. 20A dispenses with the consent requirement if the treatment is necessary to save the life of the child or prevent serious damage to his/her health.
Skene states that legislation authorising doctors to give children blood transfusions to save the child's life (even if parents object) was introduced after a number of cases in which parents who were Jehovah's Witnesses refused permission for blood transfusions for their children when doctors felt it was necessary to save life[5]. Skene, by way of example, refers to the early decision of Jehu's Case (unreported decision of Supreme Court of Victoria, March 1960) where a man was convicted of manslaughter of his child as he refused permission for a blood transfusion principally because of his religious belief[6]. Skene adds that there were a number of other old cases where parents were found criminally liable for refusing or failing to seek treatment for a sick child on religious grounds but does not specify these[7]. Thus, it appears that the legislation was passed not only to protect the lives and health of children by ensuring they receive necessary emergency treatment regardless of parental consent but also to protect parents from criminal liability by allowing doctors to intervene against parental wishes when necessary.