Court grants transfusion order for Jehovah’s Witness baby sept, 23 2011
Court grants transfusion order for Jehovahs Witness baby
Good, I would want the same outcome with anyone in my family
Few things shout Child Endangerment louder than this Watchtower position.
These parents at least seem reasonably balanced, and they don't seem to be kicking up too much of a fuss about it being used as a last resort... interesting. I wonder if they'll get in trouble for failing to tow the party line and be more bullish about the whole thing.
I am sure glad to see this baby get ok'd for transfusion and get a chance at growing up!
I think Coombes Hospital has dealt with JWs before....
Coombe faces €1m bill over transfusion case
Updated: 17:29, Thursday, 8 May 2008
The Coombe Women's Hospital is facing a bill of over €1m for costs over its successful High Court action in a recent blood transfusion case.Coombe Hospital
Won court ruling
- Court permits blood transfusion for twins
- HSE to seek court order over blood transfusion
- Coombe acted lawfully in transfusion case
- Hospital begins landmark case over transfusion
The Coombe Women's Hospital is facing a bill of over €1m for costs over its successful High Court action in a recent blood transfusion case.
The case centred on whether the hospital was entitled to administer a necessary blood transfusion to a female member of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, against her wishes.
In a landmark ruling last month, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy ruled the hospital had acted lawfully in getting a court order allowing it give the transfusion to the 24-year-old woman, who may be identified only as Ms K.
The court also set out guidelines as to how hospitals, the courts and the State might address similar situations in the future.
The case was before the judge again yesterday to decide issues of the multi-million euro costs of the 37-day hearing.
The judge rejected applications by both the hospital and Ms K to have their costs paid by the State.
She ruled the hospital and Ms K must each pay their own costs, estimated at sums of more than six figures in both cases.
No basis for costs against the State
The judge said there was no basis for awarding costs to the sides against the State.
The Attorney General was a defendant in the case because issues relating to the Constitution were raised and was not a protagonist in the proceedings, she said.
The judge said an application by the hospital for its costs of an earlier application by the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Ireland, to be joined as a co-defendant to the proceedings should be decided by Mr Justice Frank Clarke who had refused that application in December
Earlier, in seeking costs of the main action against the State, Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for the hospital, said it was not seeking costs against Ms K because she was a patient of the hospital and as such the Coombe felt it had a duty of care towards her.
He was seeking costs against the State on grounds that this traumatic case had raised issues of public importance.
Counsel for Ms K, Mr John Rogers SC, said this action was a unique case of obvious public importance and the State should bear the costs.
Mr David Barniville SC, for the Attorney General, said his client strenuously objected to being saddled with the costs of the case.
When the Attorney General learned that an application for costs against him was to be made, his response was shock and outrage.
Counsel said the Attorney General was not a protagonist in the
action, no relief against him was sought by the hospital or Ms K and the central issue in the case was Ms K's capacity, not a constitutional issue.
Declaration issued last month
In her judgment last month Ms Justice Laffoy granted a declaration that the hospital acted lawfully in sedating and tranfusing Ms K following the making of the 21 September High Court order to that effect.
The case involved the first time an Irish court was asked to decide in what circumstances a court may make an order authorising medical treatment for a competent adult who has refused such treatment.
The action arose after the hospital secured an emergency High Court order on 21 September 2006 permitting it to administer a blood transfusion to Ms K.
The hospital got the order on an ex-parte basis (one side represented) after saying it feared the woman's life would be in danger were she not transfused.
Ms K had earlier that day lost an estimated 80% of her blood while giving birth to her first child, a boy, but refused the transfusion because of her religious beliefs.
The hospital argued it was entitled to seek the order and the court was entitled to grant it.
Miss K rejected those claims, argued the order breached her
rights, represented an assault on her person and also
Because Ms K had initially told the hospital she was Roman Catholic and misrepresented other matters, the situation in which she was transfused against her wishes was, unfortunately, 'of her own making'', the judge remarked in her decision.
These parents at least seem reasonably balanced, and they don't seem to be kicking up too much of a fuss about it being used as a last resort... interesting. I wonder if they'll get in trouble for failing to tow the party line and be more bullish about the whole thing. - Cedars
I bet they are praying it doesn't come to that.
"But he has also given the child’s parents permission to return to court to apply for the ruling to be changed in circumstances where the situation of their daughter improves and the risks diminish." - http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/news/court-grants-transfusion-order-for-jehovahs-witness-baby/
Surely the Hospital Liason Committee were involved so the parents won't get into trouble per se but instead will have an elder constantly 'holding their hands' interfering and pushing for a new court hearing on their behalf as soon as the baby's condition improves..?