A Supreme Court justice has ruled that medical staff at a Hunter New England hospital can give blood and blood products to a young child if necessary during surgery, overriding her parents' refusal to consent on religious grounds.
Justice Trish Henry's judgement, published on Monday, said the three-year-old required two surgeries and treating doctors and nurses had sought permission to give the child blood or blood products in the unexpected case it was medically necessary.
The state's health authority took the matter to court when the girl's parents did not consent, because they were Jehovah's Witnesses.
Justice Henry ruled that the girl's treating medical professionals could give her blood or blood products if required, but they should "minimise the use of the blood transfusion procedures".
She made the decision under a jurisdiction that allowed the court to provide "an independent and objective judgment" in the "best interests and welfare of the child", even if the parents had not consented.
Justice Henry also banned the public identification of the child and her parents as well as the hospital and its staff members.
"The evidence on the application indicated that [the child's] treating specialist and medical team have been sensitive to the Parents' desire to avoid treating [her] with blood or blood products given their religious beliefs," she said.
"They have considered and will continue to take steps to exhaust all alternative treatments, and will adopt a blood conservation strategy in the course of the surgeries and as part of [her] recovery.
"Despite this, the evidence from her treating specialist is that it may be clinically necessary to treat [her] with blood and/or blood products in connection with the surgical procedures to manage the risk of damage to her health, including the risk of death.
"The strongly held convictions of the Parents were factors which the Court took into account. However, based on the medical evidence and the submissions advanced by the parties, I considered this to be a case where it was clearly in [the child's] best interests and welfare to authorise the proposed treatment in advance of her upcoming surgeries."
