Image
Icon

Directory

IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconCompare Medical Scheme Benefits
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconExpatriate Cover
IconHealthcare Consultants
IconMedical Aid Brokers
IconMedical Aid Schemes
IconMedical Malpractice Cover
IconMedical Schemes Trustees Liability Insurance
IconMedical Service Providers
IconOmbud
IconOnline Quotes
IconPublications
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconWellness Programs
Advertise Here
  Subscribe To »

Minors, blood tranfusions and the court

Published

2019

Wed

17

Jul

 

The media recently reported on the case of Durban boy whose life was saved after his paediatrician went to court, on an urgent basis, to approve life-saving blood transfusions for him. The boy suffers from sickle cell anemia. The court made an interim order allowing the boy to receive blood transfusions, when necessary. The boy’s parents, Jehovah's Witnesses, objected to the transfusions on religious grounds. By: Donald Dinnie, CEO of Natmed Medical Defence.

 

Cases involving the ordering of medical treatment of a minor (i.e. someone younger than 18 years of age) against the wishes of their parents are always difficult if not only for the emotions and sensitivities which arise in dealing with one’s religious beliefs and the physical wellbeing of a loved one.

 

From time to time our courts are tasked with having to consider on the evidence before it, usually in constrained circumstances, because the application before it is brought on an urgent basis – often without the benefits of affidavits and the luxury of time to ponder the issues – whether to order the medical treatment of a minor child agaist the wishes of the child’s parents. The cases usually involve the giving of blood transfusions where the parents object on religious grounds.

 

Invariably in such matters, where the medical evidence is that without the transfusion the child will die, a transfusion is ordered. Treatment will always be ordered were a child’s life is in danger and not treating is at odds with the childs best interests.

 

At common law, the High Court is the upper guardian of a minor and will always act in the best interests of the child. Section 28 of the Constitution provides that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child, and that every child has the right to basic healthcare services.

 

In terms of Section 129 of the Children’s Act, a High Court or children’s court may consent to the medical treatment of – or a surgical operation on – a child in all instances where another person that may give consent under that Act (usually a parent) refuses or is unable to give consent. In terms of that Section no parent, guardian or care-giver of a child may withhold consent by reason only of religious or other beliefs, unless that person can show that there is a medically accepted alternative choice to the medical treatment or surgery proposed.

 

Because applications for ordering medical treatment are usually dealt with in circumstances of urgency, and the treatment is once off and administered immediately following the order, the effect of the order is final and the order is not revisited.

 

In the case of the judgment and child under discussion, there is a return date of 05 December to allow the parents to file opposing papers while the interim order remains in place. So, in the meanwhile, the child will receive blood transfusions from time to time as and when necessary. If, on the return date, the parents can convince the court that there is a medically accepted alternative treatment which would have the same life-saving results as a blood tranfusion, the interim order will be discharged. If not, the order will be made final and the doctors and hospital can continue adminstering blood transfusions if needed.

 

It will be interesting to see what evidence of suitable alternative treatment is presented to the court on 05 December.

 
Source: Vanessa Rogers Textbox Conceptual
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

What is the difference between Black Friday and Cyber Monday?

Cyber Monday originated in the US and is a marketing term used for the Monday after Thanksgiving. It was created by retailers to encourage people to shop online. The term was coined by Ellen ...
Read More »

  

Interview with Bright Rock CEO, Schalk Malan about their ground-breaking temporary disability cover

In October 2019 Needs-matched life insurance provider, BrightRock, announced enhancements to their temporary expenses cover. Read More More recently Insurancegateway® Interviewed Schalk Malan to not only ...
Read More »

  

Genesis Medical Scheme announces the lowest contribution increase for 2020

Across the private healthcare industry in South Africa, members of medical schemes are bracing themselves for a 10% increase in their 2020 contributions, exceeding the general inflation rate by 4. With average ...
Read More »

  

A high road scenario for diabetes reversal

There is a growing body of research that suggests that one of the world’s most devastating illnesses, diabetes, can be reversed. Medical and nutrition experts Prof Tim Noakes and Dr Neville Wellington and ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Image

Short-term »

Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Adjusted Free Float Share Index:

The Adjusted Free Float Share Index is a hybrid of the Financial & Industrial Index (FINDI) and the Resources Index (RESI). The Resources component has been reduced to provide more optimal risk-return characteristics, especially as regards single stock weightings.
More Definitions »

 

Advertise

 

eZine

 

Contact IG

 

Media Pack

 

RSS Feeds

By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Insurance Gateway (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2019. All Rights Reserved.