Young Jehovah Witness loses fight to stop forced blood transfusions
AFP
OTTAWA, June 26, 2009 (AFP) - Canada's high court on Friday dismissed a young Jehovah Witness's arguments that forcing her to get a blood transfusion violated her rights.
In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled such medical interventions are constitutional.
However, the justices also set new guidelines for lower courts to consider the maturity of youths before ordering treatment.
"The care and protection of children is a pressing and substantial legislative objective that is of sufficient importance to justify limiting a Charter right," Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in the decision.
However, "it is arbitrarily unfair or based on irrational considerations to deny mature minors under 16 the opportunity of demonstrating what in the case of the older mature minors is presumed in their favour," she said.
"The more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a truly mature and independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greater the weight that must be given to his or her views when a court is exercising its discretion."
The then 14-year-old girl, who cannot be named under Canadian law, received a court-ordered blood transfusion in 2006 in Winnipeg, in western Manitoba province, to treat internal bleeding.
She and her parents opposed a transfusion based on a religious belief that the Bible forbids ingesting blood, but authorities obtained a court order to impose it on her. She was given three units of blood.
"There almost are no words to say just how brutal of an act it is," the girl told public broadcaster CBC. "I once compared it to almost being raped. There are no options for you, there's nothing you can do about it and it's very hard to deal with."
"It was very heart-breaking just to have all my decisions taken away from me, especially with my strong beliefs on not taking blood and knowing that it wasn't even necessary and to have a judge who didn't even speak to me at all. I never got to tell him anything about what I wanted.
"It was very, very emotional."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, "it is arbitrarily unfair or based on irrational considerations to deny mature minors under 16 the opportunity of demonstrating what in the case of the older mature minors is presumed in their favour," she said.
"The more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a truly mature and independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greater the weight that must be given to his or her views when a court is exercising its discretion."
The then 14-year-old girl, who cannot be named under Canadian law, received a court-ordered blood transfusion in 2006 in Winnipeg, in western Manitoba province, to treat internal bleeding.
She and her parents opposed a transfusion based on a religious belief that the Bible forbids ingesting blood, but authorities obtained a court order to impose it on her. She was given three units of blood.
"There almost are no words to say just how brutal of an act it is," the girl told public broadcaster CBC. "I once compared it to almost being raped. There are no options for you, there's nothing you can do about it and it's very hard to deal with."
"It was very heart-breaking just to have all my decisions taken away from me, especially with my strong beliefs on not taking blood and knowing that it wasn't even necessary and to have a judge who didn't even speak to me at all. I never got to tell him anything about what I wanted.
"It was very, very emotional."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------