For those of you interested, here's a quick translation into English of the reason why: par 2.3 to 2.5
The court has considered that, taking into account the history of law, blood transfusions are to be designated as accepted medical treatment of preventive and curative nature as meant in art. 4, heading en under c, second, of the WOBKA. She has judged that the secretary has refused to consider the application on sound grounds because the appellants have indicated to refuse blood transfusions, even when a doctor may consider it necessary.
Appellants have challenged this judgement. They argue that there exist sound grounds to no longer consider blood transfusions as a curative and preventive treatment to be in the interest of the child, due to advancements of medical knowledge showing administering blood transfusions and / or products containing blood components come with serious risk while there exist other, better methods of treatment that lead to a better result.
Like the court correctly considered, the workout of the history of article 4, heading and under c, second, of the WOBKA, it is understood that current preventive and curative treatment as meant in that stipulation entails blood transfusions (chamber documents II 1987/88, 20 046, nr 6, p.31). Appellants did not substantiate their argument with objective data that the (medical) apprehension have changed and have at trial made known not to challenge current medical treatment. From the Protocol of medical treatment of under aged Jehovah's Witnesses can be derived that not in all cases there is an alternative for blood transfusions. This Protocol furnishes a procedure that can be followed in those cases lacking an alternative to blood transfusions while legal guardians/ representatives refuse consent for this treatment. The appellants have confirmed while questioned at trail that the alternatives known to them cannot be designated as accepted and current methodologies of treatment. The argument of the appellants cannot be accepted that the secretary has incorrectly refused the “permission in principle” on the ground that in certain cases adequate alternatives are available. This circumstance does not diminish that the appellants, now they are not willing to consent to have an adopted child treated with a blood transfusion, do not meet article 4, heading and under c, second, of the WOBKA, which stipulation is phrased obligatory / mandatory. The argument fails.
Borgia
Dutch courts consider banning JW's adopting children due to blood doctrine
by inrainbows 10 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Borgia