Winnipeg Jehovah's Witness Teen Loses Fight to Refuse Blood Transfusions
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 February 2007, 21:00 CST
By MICHELLE MACAFEE
WINNIPEG (CP) - A Jehovah's Witness teenager with Crohn's disease says she may end up leaving Manitoba for treatment after the province's highest court denied her the right to reject blood transfusions.
In a unanimous decision released Tuesday, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled a lower-court judge was correct in allowing doctors to give the 15-year-old Winnipeg girl a transfusion they considered medically necessary.
The girl, who can't be identified, says she was overwhelmed and scared when she was given blood against her will last April during a flare-up of her Crohn's, a chronic illness that can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract.
She went to court to make sure it would never happen again.
"Really the decision is almost forcing me to move out of the province if I want to make my own medical decisions that would keep in mind my religious beliefs," the girl told The Canadian Press.
"I wanted to be viewed as a capable person and really not have a government decide for me what should happen. It is my body, and it is my religious beliefs, and they don't know how this affects me."
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose transfusions because they interpret certain passages of the Bible as forbidding the ingestion of blood.
When the girl refused treatment, Child and Family Services obtained a court order allowing the procedure when medically necessary.
During the appeal hearing held last September, arguments centred on whether the girl should be allowed to make her own treatment decisions as a "mature minor."
The court agreed with provincial legislation that sets 16 as the age minors can be allowed to make their own health-care decisions. But child welfare officials can also try to get court orders for minors between 16 and 18.
A spokeswoman for Manitoba's child protection branch said officials rely on medical advice when applying for treatment orders.
"If the medical information is to confirm the child's health and well-being could be in jeopardy without the treatment, then the agency is compelled to act on that medical advice," said Linda Burnside.
The Winnipeg teen turns 16 in June, but has already been studying and socializing with 16-and 17-year-olds because she skipped a grade in school.
Lawyer Shane Brady, who represented the girl's parents in court, said her reality highlights how arbitrary the law is.
"It seems a bit artificial to say that she can't make the same decision everyone else in her class can make," said Brady, who has argued several similar court cases across Canada.
If the girl were living in a province such as Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador, the key issue would be her mental capacity, not her age.
The Appeal Court judges acknowledged the transfusions infringe on the teen's right to religious freedom, but concluded they are justified because the sanctity of life and duty to protect children are "principles of fundamental justice."
"These cases are heart-breaking for all parties involved," wrote the judges.
"For judges, these cases are among the most difficult they are called upon to decide. A judge must make a complex, potentially life-altering decision in perhaps a matter of hours."
The Manitoba case is just one of several involving Jehovah's Witnesses in which the courts have been asked to intervene.
Late last month, the British Columbia government seized three of four surviving sextuplets so they could receive blood transfusions over their parents' objections. The province returned the infants to the parents a few days later, however, when they challenged the seizure in court.
In Montreal, a judge visited a 15-year-old boy in hospital before ruling last June he would have to undergo blood transfusions to treat his leukemia.
Medical ethicists say the court is being too strict in denying minors a say in their treatment until they are 16.
But Arthur Schafer adds it's difficult to figure out whether young Jehovah's Witnesses are really speaking for themselves when they refuse treatment, or if they are faced with "tremendous coercion."
"For a teenager to defy not just her parents but her whole community, she would be shunned and ostracized," said Schafer, director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics.
"The idea that she could make a voluntary choice in that circumstance is really dubious. The idea that you interfere to protect the child is well established in Canadian law."
However, Eike Kluge, a professor of biomedical ethics at the University of Victoria, said "the evolving ethics of health-care consent" in recent years have come to recognize that it's discriminatory under the Charter of Rights to deny competent children the right to make their own medical decisions.
Source: Canadian Press
Related Articles
- Top Court Urged to Strike Down Law That Forced Blood Transfusion for Teen
- Doctor Says Blood Transfusion Seemed to Be Safest Option for Sextuplets
- Guidelines Cut Need for Blood Transfusions
- B.C. Government Seizes Three Sextuplets for Blood Transfusions
- NPSA Issues New Advice for Safer Blood Transfusions
- Winnipeg Teen Set for Next Step in Court Fight to Refuse Blood Transfusions
- Novartis Files Exjade(R) New Drug Applications for Treatment of Chronic Iron Overload Due to Blood Transfusions
- Novartis Files Exjade New Drug Applications for Treatment of Chronic Iron Overload Due to Blood Transfusions
- Blood Transfusion Increases Coronary Syndrome Death Rate
User Comments (6)
| 6. |
Posted by Danny Haszard on 01/05/2009, 16:54 Why so many WT Lawyers? Watchtower has teams of lawyers to protect itself from wrongful death lawsuits. At its core, the Jehovah's Witnesses refusal of blood transfusions is based entirely on faith, not on science (as their own "Blood Brochure" is very specific about). Bloodless surgery as a *preference* may be more popular than it once was, but that is not the issue at hand. The *doctrine* and practice of letting someone die rather than allow the use of blood in life-threatening situations is the real issue. And at its core is the blind adherence to the dictates of an organization of men. The "blood issue" is the JW's Jonestown Kool-Aid. It is their baseless test of loyalty to their Society. Despite the fact that it makes little sense to a silent majority of them anymore, they think it proves their faithfulness to "God's organization" People who die refusing blood, or who let their children die,are considered heroes. The Watchtower has teams of lawyers to protect itself from wrongful death lawsuits. |
| 5. |
Posted by Daniel on 02/19/2007, 10:39 Response to #4 It is a juriditional issue and scriptually, the Government has a role in the affair of peoples lives and to not recognise their authority is to not submit to Gods arrangement of things. Romans 13:3 The duties of the levitical priests included instructing Gods people "...in the difference between a holy thing and a profane thing; and the difference between what is unclean and what is clean they should cause them to know.." Ezekiel 44:23 In Acts Chapter 15 known as the Jersulam Decision, was written for the new ones in Antioch, Syria and Ci li'cia to "...keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If You carefully keep yourselves from these things, You will prosper. Good health to You!" Act 15: 23, 29, 31 The decison makers and holy spirit clearly, did not make any distinction between the things to be abstained from but, equated all things to be abstained from with, "...Good health to You.." And, it appears that the decison was limited to certain areas. |
| 4. |
Posted by jen on 02/09/2007, 20:11 though the patient is a minor, she still has the right to refuse blood transfusion since it is part of her belief and the government should not intervene with it... and her faith is biblically based,,,acts 15:28,29... "There is no basis for such concern when Jehovah's Witnesses choose nonblood management. A doctor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine (U.S.A.) writes: "Most [Witnesses] readily sign the American Medical Association form relieving physicians and hospitals of liability, and many carry a Medical Alert [card]. A properly signed and dated 'Refusal to Accept Blood Products' form is a contractual agreement and is legally binding."—Anesthesiology News, October 1989. |
| 3. |
Posted by Mark on 02/07/2007, 23:23 Religious beliefs and Government are a delicate and combustible mix. The minor being 15 has little rights in the eyes of the law. The blood issue is a matter of the child's faith. If the law forces it's will upon her, then the law must be abided by. Jehovah's Witnesses are law abiding citizens, thus if a court order forces a minor to portake blood transfusions that is a member of a Jehovah's Witness family, that family will yield to the law. It just has a displeasing aroma that government must get involved with religion. |
| 2. |
Posted by Wes Gordon on 02/07/2007, 08:30 The decision of the court is misinformed by the notion that transfusions are inherently lifesaving and without risk, and that superior alternative treatments are not available. Regardless, this violation of the patient's bodily integrity is the moral equivalent of rape, and its participants will be accountable. |
| 1. |
Posted by Wes Gordon on 02/07/2007, 08:30 The decision of the court is misinformed by the notion that transfusions are inherently lifesaving and without risk, and that superior alternative treatments are not available. Regardless, this violation of the patient's bodily integrity is the moral equivalent of rape, and its participants will be accountable. |

RSS Feeds