A baby boy was given a life saving blood transfusion under court
order after his parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, objected on
religious grounds.
The order was made after a late night court sitting in the home of a
High Court judge on 27 December. The written judgment was published
today.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the courts had the jurisdiction and the
duty to override the religious beliefs of parents where a threat to the
life and welfare of a child was concerned.
The baby, who became unwell on Christmas Day, was given the
transfusion shortly after the hearing concluded before Mr Justice Gerard
Hogan in the early hours of the morning on 27 December.
The child's condition has improved since and he is no longer critically ill, the court heard.
Mr Justice Hogan today outlined his reasons for granting the
Children's University Hospital at Temple Street, Dublin, an order
allowing the transfusion.
He also made orders preventing identification of the child.
While conscious of the constitutional requirement that justice be
administered in public, he said a public hearing was impossible in the
circumstances of this case, but he was delivering judgment in open
court.
The baby boy was born in autumn 2010, but his twin sister died.
He became unwell due to acute bronchiolitis on Christmas Day. His
condition deteriorated further that day and at one point he stopped
breathing and had to be resuscitated.
He also had a hypoxic episode - a period of low oxygenation - which had 'potentially ominous implications'.
The boy had been transferred from another hospital to Temple Street
on 26 December, and his condition was critical that evening.
He suffered a drop in haemoglobin levels, affecting his ability to
deliver oxygen to his vital organs and to maintain brain function.
The judge said the usual trigger for a blood transfusion is where haemoglobin levels drop below a certain point.
By 9pm on 26 December, a transfusion was 'absolutely necessary'.
Mr Justice Hogan said while the child's parents were clearly anxious
for his welfare and sought the best medical care, as committed Jehovah
Witnesses they completely opposed a transfusion.
They had consented to the use of certain blood products earlier that day.
The hospital sought a court order allowing it administer a transfusion.
The emergency hearing took place in the judge's house at 1am on 27 December and lasted an hour and a half.
Doctors told the judge the baby's life was in danger and there was no medical alternative to a transfusion.
The parents told him they wanted the best for their child but, on religious grounds, could not consent to a transfusion.
The court had previously sanctioned a transfusion for another of the
couple's children, and they seemed resigned it would order one, the
judge noted.
The parents struck him as 'wholesome and upright' and most anxious
for their child's welfare yet steadfast in their religious beliefs, the
judge said.
An abhorrence of the administration of blood products was integral to those beliefs.
He said the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion.
It also gives parents the right to raise their children by reference
to their own religious and philosophical views but that right was not
absolute.
The State has a vital interest in ensuring that children are
protected and that interest can prevail even in the face of express and
fundamental constitutional rights, he said.
There was absolutely no doubt the court can intervene in a case where
the child's life, general welfare and other vital interests are at
stake, he said.
He said it was 'incontestable' the court had jurisdiction, 'and
indeed a duty', to override the religious objections of the parents
where adherence to these beliefs would threaten the life and general
welfare of their child, he ruled.
On that basis, it was lawful for the hospital to administer a transfusion and other blood products to this baby.
SIC: RTÉ/IE