Judgement rules in favour of child’s welfare
The High Court has ruled that a baby, who requires major cardiac surgery to save his life, is to receive a blood transfusion to enable the surgery to proceed. This is in light of the parents’ religious objections because they are Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Specialists submitted to the judge, Mr Justice Keehan, that the child had complex heart disease and without the surgery had no long-term prospects for survival.
The judge stated in his written judgement that although he understood the parents’ objections, he was ruling in favour of the child’s welfare.
This is, understandably, good news. Not only for the child, but also sets a legal precedent if similar cases come forward. The only point with which one could disagree with the judge is that he stated the parent’s objections, on religious grounds, were “understandable”. Maybe if you have been deluded by nonsense that puts itself higher than the concerns of your own child, but even so to call the objections understandable, demonstrates a continued underlying tolerance for this sort of nonsense, which can do untold harm.
Otherwise we wish the child well and congratulate the judge on a rational and reasonable ruling.
