Canada, province of Québec : Baby of Jehovah's Witness parents may receive blood transfusions
In french, use google translate for English
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1907941/temoin-jehovah-transfusion-sang-anemie
Canada : Baby of Jehovah's Witness parents may receive blood transfusions
by yalbmert99 11 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Vanderhoven7
Doctors needed a court order to treat a newborn baby on Wednesday in Quebec City. His parents, Jehovah's Witnesses, refused any blood transfusion for religious reasons.
A text by Yannick Bergeron
"Baby-girl", as she is referred to in court documents, was born with an abdominal mass requiring emergency surgery, according to the diagnosis of doctors at the Center Mère-Enfant de Québec (CHUL).
Without emergency intervention, specialists believe that the child could die.
Originally from Bellechasse, her parents agreed with the surgery, but refused to allow their daughter to receive any transfusion of blood products.
court judgment
The Hospital Center therefore appealed urgently to the Superior Court the day after the birth.
The settlement's motion argued that "the defendants' right to life and security of the child must take precedence over the freedom of their religious beliefs."
The judge agreed with the hospital and allowed the doctors to perform the operation. They can perform blood transfusions if needed.
I bet the parents are hapified that the decision was out of their hands
-
Earnest
The actual ruling on the case which yalbmert99 refers to can be read here (in French).
The case was heard on 19th August 2022 and the parties were the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec – Université Laval ("CHUQ") as Applicant and the parents of the infant, RC and MP, as Defendants. The case was heard before Judge Philippe Cantin with the hospital's Legal Affairs Dept. representing CHUQ, and W. Glen How representing the parents.
The context of the case was that the child of the defendants was born at 26 weeks and 6 days pregnant, which is extremely premature. The hospital was seeking authorization to administer blood products which the parents opposed because of their religious beliefs.
The doctor explained that the child was hospitalized in the intensive care unit and, although it was currently in good condition, that was likely to deteriorate rapidly. Urgent transfusions might be required should there be active bleeding, surgery, or clinical degradation associated with anemia, thrombocytopenia, or bleeding disorder.
The parents argued that authorization should not be granted since the current state of their child's health did not require a transfusion.The Court held that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the state of the child's health did require the care offered by CHUQ.
It authorized CHUQ to administer transfusions of blood products if it is deemed medically appropriate, but ordered them to minimize this to the extent that the child's state of health permits. It also directed them to inform the parents each time a transfusion of blood products is to be administered to the child and to provide them with any reasonable explanation for this procedure.
-
Fisherman
Usually, in a medical emergency of a child or when deemed medically necessary to save its life, the child is a ward of the State when parents refuse its “lifesaving” medical treatment.
-
yalbmert99
Thanks y'all for translation and analysis!
-
Earnest
Fisherman : Usually, in a medical emergency of a child or when deemed medically necessary to save its life, the child is a ward of the State when parents refuse its “lifesaving” medical treatment.
That's true, Fisherman, but it still needs a court order in most countries. What makes this case different is that there was no medical emergency and the child's life was not in immediate danger. The child was actuellement une bonne condition ("currently in good condition"). The doctor informed the Court that 90% of extremely premature babies need blood transfusion at some stage of their treatment and so the Court order was requested in anticipation that a blood transfusion would be required.
While I understand why a doctor would want such a court order before an emergency occurred, this doesn't seem to me what the law intended and I would be surprised if there was not an appeal.
Article 16 of the Code civil du Québec ("C.C.Q.") states:
The authorization of the court is necessary in the event of unjustified impediment or refusal by a person who can consent to care required by the state of health of a minor ...
At the time the matter was brought to Court a blood transfusion was not required, just anticipated.
-
Fisherman
but it still needs a court order in most countries
Because doctors don’t have legal authority. They need to get it from the State. Children are a ward of the State ( under some legal circumstances ) not of a hospital.
But there is a legal difference between a parent imposing their religion on their child depriving a child of medical treatment and a parent’s right to decide the best medical treatment for their child, acting on the child’s best interest and not based on religion.
But the State has authority over children regardless and doctors can go to the Courts if they have medical reasons the parent is making a wacky decision, or when doctors believe the child needs a treatment and a parent is not cooperating,
But some religious groups have clout and the authorities look the other way. —Until a problem arises, for example, some orthodox jews don’t vaccinate their children and since they send their children to Jewish owned schools run by orthodox jews, the kids don’t get vaccinated tor measles, etc. Until there is a measles epidemic and other infections, resulting in the municipality sending out health inspectors to enforce health codes in religious schools, even shutting down non complying religious schools who cannot provide vaccination records.— Until the coast is clear. When everything goes back to normal and the publicity dies out and also the infection rate, the government turns a blind eye influenced by clout; I’m sure of it.
But any time a hospital believes that a child needs medical treatment ( and the money iain’t coming out of their personal pocket) and parents don’t cooperate, they can easily get a Court Order and treat the child. They cannot do that with an adult although in the past I’ve seen Courts go against a proxy and order treatment in-spite of a proxy based on the wishes of a spouse or close family member. Depends on the judge and the case but now-days the proxy will normally stand.
. -
smiddy3
I just wonder if past parents who were JW`s and then came to a knowledge of TTATT ever regretted what they had done.
If there are any out there.
I shudder to think I may have done this when I was a believer.
-
BluesBrother
I have been told that nowadays, if a court gives consent , the Society does not require them to fight it … let’s hope the kid does o k , with or without blood. .
-
yalbmert99
Yeah, It is sad that we were taught to believe that doctrine. I'm glad I rejected it.
Yep let's hope