Image
Icon

Directory

IconAppraisers and Valuers
IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconDefensive Driver Training
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconForensic Investigation Services
IconInsurance Brokers - Alphabetical Listing
IconInsurance Brokers by Type of Product or Service Needed
IconInsurance Companies
IconInsurance Consultants
IconLightning Damage & Surge Protection Specialists
IconOmbud
IconOnline Quotes and Cover
IconPremium Financing
IconPublic Loss Adjustors
IconPublications
IconRating Agencies
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconRisk Finance
IconRisk Management
IconRisk Surveyors
IconSalvage Operators
IconTelephone Quotes
IconVehicle Accident Management
IconVehicle and Household Risk Inspection Services
IconVehicle Tracking
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 »

To insure or self-insure? A conundrum for fleet operators

Johannesburg, 4 March21: Fleet insurance is essential for businesses with vehicle fleets and drivers. With proper management and meticulousness, fleet managers can reduce insurance costs, improve the safety of ...
Read More »

  

Thierry Portevin to lead global risk consulting unit at Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

Previously Global Head of Property at AGCS, Portevin is appointed Global Head of Risk Consulting, leading a global team of 280 employees globally AGCS’s Chief Underwriting Office Property under interim ...
Read More »

  

Park any doubts: Insurance cover tips for second-hand cars

In recent months, second-hand car purchases have accelerated as the economic impact of Covid-19 and lockdowns have been felt and travel needs have changed. You may want to cut down on lifestyle costs by downsizing ...
Read More »

  

PERSONAL BELONGINGS MUST BE KEPT CLOSE TO THE INSURED

The policy for the insured valuables that are governed by the “close personal custody and control requirement”, means that the insured property shall be “held by, worn or attached to the insured ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Advertise Here
Image
Image
Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

MSCI:

Morgan Stanley All Country Index (Equities).
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 - 2021. All Rights Reserved.