This was significant because a tenet commonly held by Jehovah’s Witnesses is to abstain from “eating” blood, a concept that includes transfusion of blood, or blood-based products. D1 later told practitioners that she had been attending Kingdom Hall (the name given to a Jehovah’s Witness church) since her time in a refugee camp and that she had continued attending Kingdom Hall once settled in rural Victoria. Factsĭ1 first approached a hospital operated by Mercy Hospitals (which will be referred to as the Hospital) in March 2018 to book the birth of her child.Īfter making her booking, D1 had contact with the Hospital’s social work department which, by July 2018, discovered that D1 and her family were adherents of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. The case also provides some helpful guidance on managing difficult clinical situations involving the administration of blood products to children who cannot, or will not, consent and where a substitute decision-maker cannot, or will not, consent. In so holding, his Honour discussed the interaction of that jurisdiction, the Human Tissue Act 1982 (Vic) ( HT Act), and the new Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) ( MTPD Act). Macaulay J held that the Supreme Court’s welfare jurisdiction permitted the Court to authorise the administration of blood products. The primary issue before the Court was whether there was any legal authority that permitted the practitioners to administer blood products to a child (D1) in the absence of her, and her mother’s consent. In this case, the Victorian Supreme Court made an order permitting practitioners employed by Mercy Hospitals Ltd ( Mercy Hospitals) to administer blood products, or a blood transfusion, to a pregnant 17-year-old Jehovah’s Witness ( D1), over D1’s objections, and the objections of her mother ( D2). Mercy Hospitals Ltd v D1 VSC 519 Introduction
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |