Against his will, the transfusion that saved a boy
The Sydney Morning Herald
Date: May 4 2005
By Leonie Lamont
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/05/03/1115092504492.html
It was night-time. The Supreme Court building had emptied hours
before, except for the duty judge hearing an urgent application.
The Children's Hospital at Westmead was seeking the court's approval
for a life-saving blood transfusion for one of its patients.
The 16-year-old cancer patient and his parents were Jehovah's
Witnesses. They opposed the transfusion because it violated their
religious beliefs, even as they grappled with the doctors' pleas that
the teenager had a 50-50 chance of dying overnight if he did not
receive a transfusion.
The teenager, known only as Joseph, was diagnosed with acute
lymphoblastic leukaemia in March, and was attending the hospital's
oncology unit. But by last Wednesday his red cell count and platelet
count were life-threateningly low.
By the time the hospital asked Justice Ian Gzell to invoke the
court's parens patriae jurisdiction, the doctors said Joseph was very
likely to die within three days.
Joseph's father gave the judge a statement from his son in which the
teenager said he did not wish to receive a blood transfusion and that
his parents treated him as an adult. Both parents told the judge that
if he received a transfusion they would not condemn him, and would
continue to "relate to him lovingly as their son".
Soon after 8.30pm Justice Gzell said the medical advice was that
there was no alternative treatment. "I have no doubt ... that it is
in Joseph's best interests that he have the blood transfusion. He
will die otherwise. His life ought to be spared. Notwithstanding that
he is over 16 years old and his wishes must be given serious
consideration, he is still a child."
He authorised the hospital to begin a transfusion immediately.
A senior elder of the 60,000 strong Jehovah's Witnesses church in
Australia, Don Maclean, said court intervention was very rare, but
there had been cases where an adult's "no blood" instructions had
been overridden, which had ended up in the courts.
While there are media reports overseas of Jehovah's Witness families
and congregations "shunning" members who have received transfusions,
Mr Maclean said in this case the treatment had been against the will
of the family, and they would be supported.
"It is a matter of deeply held principle ... I think they would feel
violated by such treatment, and that is how we think, of compassion
for the boy that he was violated."
Yesterday, The Children's Hospital at Westmead refused to comment,
and the family could not be contacted.
Simon Longstaff, executive director of Sydney's St James Ethics
Centre, said the court had recognised Joseph's expressed desire to
refuse treatment, but it did not recognise that as a child he was
fully competent.
The ethical consideration was for the court to preserve his life,
until such time, as an adult, he could make this decision, Dr
Longstaff said.
The Australian Medical Association's medical director in NSW, Dr
Robyn Napier, said doctors' obligations were spelt out in its code of
ethics. It dealt with "the best treatment, the best outcome, and how
to get that".
She said if a patient was incapable of making a decision for their
best treatment - such as a child - the doctor was required to obtain
a court determination.
--
Clayton The Lord Of The Eternally Changing Name
AA# 1861
EAC Executive Officer In Charge Of Squandering And Wasting Valuable
Resources
"Religion is like horse laxative....if you swallow it, you'll be left
feeling empty and have a huge pile of ***** to deal with!" - Clayton
.
|
