Posted on 06/26/2009 5:42:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
OTTAWA - A young Jehovah's Witness who says a forced blood transfusion violated her Charter rights learns Friday whether the courts can veto the wishes of "mature minors" when their health is at risk.
The Supreme Court of Canada will rule in the case of A.C., now 18, in a judgment that could clarify how such dilemmas should be handled across Canada.
Several similar refusals of medical treatment by Jehovah's Witnesses have made headlines in recent years. But it's the first time the top court has weighed in.
A.C. can't be identified because of the prior involvement of child welfare officials. She is described in court records as an A student and avid reader.
She also suffers chronic gastro-intestinal inflammation from Crohn's Disease. There is no cure for the painful condition, but it can be eased through surgery and drugs.
A.C. was 14 when she arrived at a Winnipeg hospital on April 12, 2006, with internal bleeding from her bowel.
Four days later, she suffered another internal bleed that the attending physician deemed a serious risk. Dr. Stanley Lipnowski concluded that without a blood transfusion, there was "immediate danger as the minutes go by, if not death, then certainly serious damage."
Many Jehovah's Witnesses take literally Bible passages that forbid ingesting blood - including transfusions.
A.C. and her parents instead requested iron and other drug alternatives to boost her body's production of red blood cells.
A.C. was assessed by hospital psychiatrists who said she had the capacity to make medical decisions.
But lawyers for Manitoba's Child and Family Services argued the province's legislation allows the court to take over care in the "best interests" of a child under the age of 16 when a life is at risk.
Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench issued an order allowing doctors to give A.C. three units of blood, forced treatment that the girl's lawyers say breached her rights to equality, freedom of religion and security of the person.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the imposed transfusion.
"Given the ... concerns of sanctity of life and protection of children, the infringement (of A.C.'s rights) is not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice," it said. "The state does have a continuing interest in the welfare of the child."
The appeal court cautioned, however, against forcing medical care on a minor when there's little hope of success.
Friday's judgment is expected to help balance the competing interests of "mature minors" against the state's goal of protecting children.
A.C.'s lawyers declared unconstitutional parts of Manitoba's Child and Family Services Act that allow courts to overrule the wishes of children under 16 in their "best interests."
They stressed that several provinces, including Ontario, allow capable patients of any age to decide their own treatment without state intervention.
British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia all intervened in the case on Manitoba's side.
Next forced abortions for Catholics?
Those idiot Muslim women want to listen to preachers that order them to be gusseted head to toe with bedsheets and nets, more power to ‘em.
And if the idiot Amish women want to listen to preachers that order them to always do their ironing the hard way, and avoid that English Devil Electricity, what is that to me?
And if a Jehovie refuses a blood transfusion to keep him, or his kid alive, I ain’t gonna tie him down and start poking needles into his hide, or tie him down so I can start poking needles into the kid’s hide. As Billy Currington’s been singing on the country radio stations, God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy. Can’t keep the crazies from their craziness, and shouldn’t often try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.