25 Jan 1996 : Column 1162 to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, if this was a matter with which she had to deal. I do so because it actually happened in Oxford.The child of two Jehovah's Witnesses aged eight was knocked down, severely injured and was bleeding to death. The parents refused to sign the form giving permission for a blood transfusion, as they would because of their religion. A judge was summoned to the child's bedside; a care order was made; the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.
I believe that the judge and the hospital in that case did right. However, it goes to show quite how much one must pause and consider the unknown reactions that may arise. If one attempts to enforce access with a legal big stick, the reaction of one or the other parent may be quite unpredictable. Such a generalised discretion as the one suggested would, perhaps, force the court to run upon a waterfall. I believe that it should have discretion to hold back from that waterfall if it sees fit.
This is an excerpt from Hansard. Does anyone know any more on this subject? Poor kid. Gets knocked down. Parents want the child dead......when the child has life saving treatment...the parents don't want the child back?!
ISP