A New Zealand court has ordered the temporary custody of a child at the center of a lawsuit involving blood transfusions from donors immunized against Covid-19.
The four-month-old infant is being treated urgently for a heart condition at an Auckland hospital.
His parents obstructed the procedure and petitioned the court to order that he receive blood from unvaccinated donors.
However, the High Court found that the procedure was in the “best interest” of the kid.
Justice Ian Gault ordered that the youngster, known in court records as Baby W, be placed under the court’s care “from the date of the order until the end of his operation and post-operative rehabilitation.”
He denied the parents’ plea for unvaccinated blood and concurred with health officials that the boy’s survival “depended on the application being approved.
However, he emphasized that the boy’s parents were his primary guardians and that doctors must keep them apprised of his status at all times.
Sue Grey, the attorney for the parents, requested that a specialized donor service containing blood from only unvaccinated donors be developed. Justice Gault denied this motion.
Ms. Grey stated that the vaccine’s long-term effects were “untested” and accused doctors of ideologically refusing to provide an alternative donor service.
However, attorneys representing the state blood service stated that the formation of any direct donation service would have been a “slippery slope” that would have “damaged an outstanding blood service.”
Justice Gault found, based on testimony from New Zealand’s chief medical officer, that there was “no scientific evidence that there is any Covid-19 vaccine-related risk from blood provided by vaccinated donors.
The issue has been a focal point for anti-vaccine activists in New Zealand, with demonstrators – many carrying placards – assembling outside the court before Wednesday’s verdict.
The case also revealed that the parents were accompanied by a “support person” during a meeting with doctors at the Starship hospital in Auckland, who hijacked the discussion.
According to them, the individual presented several bogus conspiracy theories and then claimed that hospital transfusions were killing infants.
Liz Gunn, a prominent anti-vaccine activist, and former television host told the protesters outside the courthouse that the judgment was “incorrect on every level” after the ruling.
Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) noted that the case featured a “difficult situation for all parties” but emphasized that the “health and wellbeing” of all children in its care remained its priority.
Given the circumstances, Dr. Philip Joseph, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, told that the court’s decision was predictable.
“Even parents’ rights to religious freedom must yield to the right to life (protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990),” Dr. Joseph stated.
“There are several examples of parents of Jehovah’s Witnesses being forced to allow their children to get blood transfusions in life-threatening situations,” he continued.
There is no significant difference between these precedents and the court’s decision in this instance.
