Consultation Paper on Bioethics - Law Reform Commission

2.55 In 2008 in Health Service Executive v C and D, 126 Laffoy J granted
the HSE an order allowing doctors to administer blood transfusions or other
treatments considered “medically necessary” to twin babies after their birth in
order to avoid death or serious injury. 127 The twins, who were unborn at the time
of the order, were severely anaemic and would require transfusions within
minutes of being prematurely induced, in order to avoid risk of death or serious
injury. Their parents, as Jehovah‟s Witnesses, had objected to blood products
on religious grounds but agreed to abide by the court order.
2.56 The order made by Laffoy J would appear to be in line with the
approach taken in other jurisdictions towards parents who refuse medical
treatment on religious grounds on behalf of their children. In Prince v
Massachusetts, 128 the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
“The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to
expose the community or the child to communicable diseases or the
latter to ill health or death….Parents may be free to become martyrs
themselves. But it does not follow they are free in identical
circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have
reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that
choice for themselves.” 129
Similarly, in Re R (a minor) (blood transfusion), 130 the English High Court made
an order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 overriding the “scriptural
conscience” of Jehovah‟s Witness parents that had led them to reject life-saving
blood products for their 10-month old infant who was suffering from leukaemia.
Booth J directed that blood products should only be administered in an
“imminently life-threatening” situation where there is no reasonable alternative.
In any “less than imminently life-threatening” situation doctors should consult
with the parents considering “at every opportunity all available forms of
management suggested by the parents.” 131 However, Bridge is highly critical of
an approach that “compromises the child in all but the last resort in order to
keep faith with the parental convictions and their perception of how welfare may
best be enhanced.” She argues that by adopting such a sympathetic approach
126 The Irish Times 25 April 2008.
127 Ibid
128 (1944) 321 US 158.
129 Ibid at 170. See Diaz “Refusal of Medical Treatment Based on Religious Beliefs:
Jehovah‟s Witness Parents” (2007) 16 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 85.
130 [1993] 2 FLR 757.
131 Ibid at 761.
62