by skeeter1 13 Replies latest watchtower medical
From the Canadian Supreme Court's website, the Court will hear a pivitol blood case whether a Jehovah's Witness teenager should be forced to have a blood transfusion. This important case will most likely set the tone of the Canadian Government stand on a minor's right to refuse medically recommended life-saving treatment.
Skeeter
Published: 8 hours ago
OTTAWA -- When she was almost 15, a hospitalized teen from Winnipeg was apprehended by child welfare authorities and forced against her religious beliefs to undergo a blood transfusion that she compared to "being raped and violated."
The surgery kicked off an intense legal dispute that reaches the Supreme Court of Canada Tuesday in a test of the rights of "mature minors" to make their own decisions when stacked against the competing interest of the state in protecting children.
Legal clashes over court-ordered blood transfusions and other medical treatments have played out nationwide and the Supreme Court's judgment in the case is expected to set a standard on when children are considered capable of making their own calls.
Email to a friend 
Printer friendly Font: 
The girl, a Jehovah's Witness identified as A.C., is now almost 17 years old, has moved to Ontario and plans to attend Tuesday's hearing.
She is described in a court document as a top, award-winning student who is bilingual, loves to read Jane Austen and John Grisham, and suffers from Crohn's disease, a chronic, incurable disease that inflames the intestinal tract.
"The central issue on this appeal is whether A.C. has the legal right to make autonomous medical treatment decisions," says a written court brief from her legal team.
Two years ago, A.C. was admitted to hospital to be treated for bleeding of her bowel. After she refused a transfusion because it is forbidden in her religion, her doctor tipped off Winnipeg Child and Family Services, who immediately apprehended her from her parents, who are also Jehovah's Witnesses.
Child welfare authorities obtained a judge's approval for a transfusion after satisfying him that A.C. was in immediate danger of death or serious injury.
A.C. contends that children's services did not have the "right or obligation " to interfere, just as her parents did not have the right because she had the capacity to make her own decision.
"Having someone else's blood pumping through my veins, stressing my body, caused me to reflect on how my rights over my body had been taken away by a judge who did not care enough to talk with me," she wrote in a 2006 affidavit filed in the Supreme Court.
"That day, my tears flowed non-stop. Nothing can properly describe how I was feeling and still feel today. I could liken it to being raped and violated but even those words do not express my feelings strong enough."
A.C. says she had the right to pursue other medical treatment that respected her religious conscience, including iron pumped into her body intravenously to help it produce red blood cells.
She wants the Supreme Court to rule that the government violated her charter rights to equality, religious freedom, and life, liberty and security of the person and that Manitoba's child welfare law, applying to all children under age 16, is therefore, unconstitutional. The case no longer affects A.C. personally because she is no longer a minor.
Unlike some provinces, Manitoba does not make exceptions for "mature minors" -- older children who are deemed capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their medical decisions.
A.C.'s lawyers say that Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon all permit capable persons of any age to decided their own medical treatment without state interference.
The Manitoba government and Child and Family Services want the Supreme Court to view the case through the lens of the "best interests of the child" and reinforce a 1995 benchmark ruling that ordered a blood transfusion for a Toronto toddler, against the wishes of her Jehovah's Witness parents.
"Age as a prerequisite for the ability to make important decisions is a pervasive feature of the law throughout Canada," government lawyers wrote in a court submission.
"These distinctions are based on the common sense appreciation that there is a correlation between age and maturity in decision making, particularly where decisions may have irreversible consequences."
Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia are intervening in the case on Manitoba's side.
A.C. is bringing the case to the Supreme Court after losing in the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
One of her lawyers, Shane Brady, also represented the parents of four Vancouver infants - the survivors of a set of sextuplets - in a failed court challenge two years ago against them receiving blood transfusions.
There have been other high-profile cases of Jehovah's Witness teens who have unsuccessfully challenged blood transfusions, but this is the first time the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on the issue.
In 2001, 16-year-old Bethany Hughes of Calgary refused to undergo blood transfusions because of her faith. After receiving 38 transfusion, she died of leukemia in September 2002, sparking a court battle between her father and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Three years ago, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled against a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness decision to refuse life-saving blood transfusions. The teen suffered from a potentially fatal form of bone cancer and the court said that the rights of a mature minor to make her own medical decisions did not trump the court's authority to protect her life and safety.
In another more recent case, an 11-year-old boy from Hamilton, Ont., was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society this month and is being forced to undergo chemotherapy against him and his family's wishes, after a judge ruled that the child is not capable of understanding the implications of his refusal.
In 2001, 16-year-old Bethany Hughes of Calgary refused to undergo blood transfusions because of her faith. After receiving 38 transfusion, she died of leukemia in September 2002, sparking a court battle between her father and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The above line is WRONG. It makes it sound like the blood transfusions killed Bethany.
The facts of the case are that Bethany STOPPED the blood transfsusions and STARTED arsenic; and THEN she died.
Skeeter
At least she is alive today to fight this!!
I pray that they find in our favor!!
A.C. contends that children's services did not have the "right or obligation " to interfere, just as her parents did not have the right because she had the capacity to make her own decision.
"Having someone else's blood pumping through my veins, stressing my body, caused me to reflect on how my rights over my body had been taken away by a judge who did not care enough to talk with me," she wrote in a 2006 affidavit filed in the Supreme Court.
"That day, my tears flowed non-stop. Nothing can properly describe how I was feeling and still feel today. I could liken it to being raped and violated but even those words do not express my feelings strong enough."
"Raped and Violated" ....those are the ringtones of the WAtchtower attorney defense team. These two words appear in almost every case involving a JW and blood. I am sick and tired of hearing those two words. This girl idd not make her own decision, she made the decision of the Watchtower Society. Just, like she made the decision to use the words "raped and violated" in her affidavit. These words were planted by Watchtower Legal.
Skeeter
I hope and pray justice finally prevails and a legal precedent is set!
Q
.C. says she had the right to pursue other medical treatment that respected her religious conscience, including iron pumped into her body intravenously to help it produce red blood cells.
Apparantly, the doctors did not think this would have worked quickly enough. In fact, on the Candian Supreme Court's website it states the following details about this case (by the way, the Watchtower lost and could not get their expert's testimony in....):
Decision on motion to adduce new evidence, Bi, This appeal involves the rights of a 14-year-old child. She is a Jehovah’s Witness. She suffers from Crohn’s Disease, a chronic inflammation of parts of the gastro-intestinal tract. On Wednesday, April 12, 2006, she was admitted into hospital after suffering an internal bleed. In the early hours of Sunday morning, April 16, 2006, she suffered another internal bleed, which decreased her hemoglobin count to the point that, in the opinion of the attending medical personnel, she was faced with an imminent and serious risk to her life or health. The hospital wished to give her a blood transfusion but both she and her parents refused to consent to the receipt of any blood or blood products on religious grounds.
The Director of Child and Family Services of Manitoba then applied to the court under s. 25 of The Child and Family Services Act, S.M. 1985-86, c. 8 (C.F.S.A.), to authorize qualified medical personnel to give blood transfusions despite the refusal of consent.
By order dated April 16, 2006, Kaufman J. on the basis of the medical evidence of Dr. Lipnowski, concluded that without a blood transfusion there was “immediate danger as the minutes go by, if not death, then certainly serious damage”. He acknowledged that the child was mature and did not consent to a blood transfusion; nevertheless, he granted the treatment order because in his view the blood transfusions would be in the child’s best interest.
The issue became moot shortly thereafter when a blood transfusion was administered. On appeal from Kaufman J., the Manitoba Court of Appeal concluded that while the issue was moot, it was capable of arising in future cases and would almost always be moot before an appeal could be taken. The Court of Appeal therefore proceeded to hear the appeal and held that the order of Kaufman J. complied with both the C.F.S.A. and with the Charter.
The issues on the appeal to this Court are said to be as follows:
(1) Do ss. 25(8) and (9) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act displace the common law principle relating to mature minors who are nevertheless in need of protection to override their refusal to essential medical treatment, and
(2) if so, then have any of the mature minor’s rights under the Charter been violated and if so, are those violations justifiable?Decision on motion to adduce new evidence, Bi,.....
(The applicants/appellants now seek to introduce as fresh evidence the affidavit (Skeeter explanation: the Watchtower wants Dr. Shandar's evidence into the court) of Dr. Aryeh Shandar, sworn May 25, 2006, to respond to the medical evidence of Dr. Lipnowski that formed the factual basis of Kaufman J.’s ruling on April 16, 2006. Had Dr. Shandar’s evidence been available at the time, they say, it might have affected the decision of Kaufman J. to grant the order he did.
While I recognize the very strong religious views of the applicants/appellants, and their firm belief that the original order was not properly made, my view is that the proposed evidence of Dr. Shandar has no relevance to the issues to be argued on the appeal. (Skeeter exlanation: to the Watchtower) This Court will not retry the factual case before Kaufman J. The argument on appeal is that given the evidence before Kaufman J. the order ought not to have been made as a matter of law having regard to the mature child’s clearly stated wish to refuse the blood transfusion.The applicants also seek to have this application to admit fresh evidence (Skeeter explanation: the Watchtower now is trying to get more evidence into the court) decided by the full panel of the Court at or following the hearing of the appeal scheduled for May 20, 2008. In my view I should deal with the application now. I believe the proferred evidence is irrelevant and destructive of the factual basis of the appeal (Skeeter exlanation: to the Watchtower)
on which leave was granted. I conclude that the motion should be dismissed without costs. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to the right of the applicants if they so desire to renew the application for the admission of this fresh evidence to the full panel of the Court at the hearing of the appeal on May 20, 2008. If admitted, arrangements can be made for cross-examination and the subsequent filing of transcripts in the usual way.
Dismissed, without costs
"....judge who did not care enough to talk with me," she wrote in a 2006 affidavit filed in the Supreme Court.
She in a hospital, bleeding out her blood, and at a point of imminent harm (organ failure, heart attack, stroke, or death) from lack of bloodthereof? When you are menstrating, you feel weak. When you are bleeding to the poit that the doctors and court think you really need a a blood transfusion or you're going to d-i-e.....then I don't know that she'd be able to coherently talk with a judge, even if he came to visit her.
Skeeter, thanks for the heads up on this...I would hope that Canada's Supreme Court attorneys are aware of and able to use the information in Kerry Louderback Wood's article as to just how much 'informed' consent 'mature' minors actually have, and the bias inherent in the information they are fed by Watchtower as to the efficacy of certain treatments for certain conditions. There was another case mentioned on another thread recently in Ireland that turned on the issue of 'capacity' to make an 'informed' decision - probably relevant in this case also...will be watching as to how this unfolds...
bttt
