Limited transfusion against young adults wishes
The Court was asked whether a blood transfusion should be administered to a young woman who was almost, not quite, 16, against her profound religious beliefs. X is a Jehovah’s Witness. She has explained to me, in very powerful and moving words, the basis of her belief and the fact that, recently, she was baptized in accordance with the teachings and the beliefs of her church.
Held: Though the opportunity to consider the issue properly was limited by its urgency, an order was made to allow a limited transfusion. ‘ in the final analysis, there may be situations, particularly where serious risk to health or life itself is concerned, where the duty of the court, although having regard to the views of a Gillick competent child, is to decline to give effect to them.
The overriding obligation of the court is to act in the best interests of X . . in the final analysis, the court has to take its own decision as to what is in the best interests of a young person and that, in an appropriate case, even if that young person is Gillick competent, it may be appropriate for the court to decide, with regret, but nonetheless firmly, not to give effect to the strongly held views and the strongly held religious beliefs of that young person. That is something the court is very slow to do. It is something the court is very reluctant to do and it will do it only – I put the matter descriptively rather than definitively – where there is clear evidence of a serious risk to health or possible death if the court does not intervene.
Sir James Munby
[2020] EWHC 3003 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
No longer reflects the law – Re W (a minor) (medical treatment: courts jurisdiction) CA 1992
An application was made for a declaration allowing a hospital to treat a girl aged 16 years suffering from anorexia nervosa against her wishes.
Held: The order was made. It is a feature of anorexia nervosa that it is capable of destroying the . .
No longer reflects the law – In Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Consent to Treatment) CA 1992
A doctor may not operate without on a child the consent of the person apparently legally able to give consent: ‘It is trite that in general a doctor is not entitled to treat a patient without the consent of someone who is authorised to give that . .
Cited – Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) CA 1975
(From 1975) Scarman LJ discussed the way courts should allow for religious beliefs (here the Jehovah’s Witnesses) in the context of a child’s welfare, saying that they deserved respect where they were not ‘immoral or socially obnoxious’ and: ‘there . .
Cited – AC v Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services) 26-Jun-2009
(Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Liberty and security of person – Fundamental justice – Medical treatment – Child under 16 years of age refusing blood transfusions because her religion requires that she abstain from . .
Cited – In re G (Children) (Education: Religious Upbringing) CA 4-Oct-2012
The parents, both once ultra orthodox Jews disputed the education of their children after their separation, and after the mother, though still Orthodox, ceased to be a member of the Chareidi community. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Health, Human Rights
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.656334