This could be very interesting.

In my humble (and layman's) opinion:

1.  WTBTS/the dubs could not be a party to the litigation - it would have to be the woman concerned as sole plaintiff

2.  The medical authorities would have an unassailable defence against a suit for assault because they were acting in accordance with a court order

3.  Possible suit against the medical authorities for misrepresentation/negligence in collecting and presenting the evidence to the court when applying for the order?  Difficult to prove, i would have thought.

4.  If the legal position in Eire is the same as in UK, individual judges etc. cannot be sued for their judicial decisions

5.  Possibly an action in a higher court (or Eurpean Court) for breach of the woman's human rights under ECHR?  Possible, but on what basis could she ask for damages/compensation?  And the breach has now finished if it existed at all so she couldn't sue for an order to desist (ceriatori?)

6.  I don't know anything about the Legal Aid system in Eire, but suspect she may have difficulty in getting funding.

7.  I can't see that WTBTS would fund her.  The publicity surrounding this case could, I suspect, be enough to outweigh the JW's efforts in door-to-door work for years to come.

Apologies for Eire/Ireland!

The constitutional issue, as I understand it, would be in relation to the woman's human rights, i.e. that she had a medical treatment imposed upon her by the state against her will.

A couple of thoughts arise.  First, the court ruling as I understand it was to protect the child's interests because at the time it was made it was considered that it would have been an orphan with no support network whatsoever should the mother die.

Second, as I understand it under Irish law, the child became an Irish citizen (or at least entitled to citizenship) at birth, so the state had an obligation to protect the child.

Third, if the law in Ireland is the same as in E&W, one can sue to obtain reparation/compensation for a wrong already done, or to force somebody to do something (madamus) or cease doing something (ceriatori).  I can see how the woman might sue for an arbitrary figure for damages for assault, etc.  Is there a possibility that the state may appoint someone to act on behalf of the child?

In E&W there is a procedure - rarely used - where the Attorney-General will take a case to the High Court/House of Lords where the issue is so important that a definitive ruling is required.  Presumably the same could apply here.

I entirely accept your point about the constitutional issues.  I can't help feeling, however, that the more 'sensational' media would make a hell of a meal of this in the 'Crazy Cult Woman Wanted To Die' type mode (let alone issues re being an immigrant) and that any savvy PR guy for WTBTS would be weighing this up (divine light/guidance notwithstanding).

But I speak as an outsider (not now, never have been, a JW etc.) and not as an Irish citizen or resident (although a fellow Celt), and I bow to your knowledge of the feelings re the issues involved.

Regards

Thanks for the clarification.  I understand better now.

And yes, I am Welsh but now living in Cyprus where there is more sunshine and less rain!  Slainte

Someone might consider pointing out to the judge that since the Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses no longer consider the acceptance of blood transfusions by a member as a disfellowshiping offense[backed up by official WTS press releases], they can hardly be said to have a direct interest in the prosecution of this suit.  By their own words, such a stance (whether or not to accept a blood transfusion) is a purely personal matter of conscience for the individual JW.  The woman alone has had her personal rights violated.

-V