Judge ruled children could have 'life-saving' treatment after parents refused

A judge gave doctors permission to give "potentially life-saving" medical treatment to three children whose parents refused to give consent.

Two boys were from Jehovah's Witness families who opposed blood transfusions on religious grounds. One was being treated for brain cancer and the other had a blocked kidney.

The parents of the third child refused a tetanus jag for their daughter, who was bitten by the family dog, because they "disputed the medical science" behind it.

In findings published at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Judge Lord Braid said each child came from "loving parents", but their welfare outweighed any family objections.

Two of the actions were by Greater Glasgow Health Board and the third was from Borders Health Board.

The first case concerned a 13-year-old boy who was suffering from an aggressive brain cancer called medulloblastoma.

The court heard that the boy has severe autism and cannot verbally communicate, and is unable to make decisions about his welfare.

Doctors concluded that radiotherapy and chemotherapy offered him the best chance for survival.

But this treatment carried a high risk of the boy contracting anaemia, which could require an urgent blood transfusion in order to avoid death.

The second case involved a three-year-old boy who needed surgery for a kidney blockage.

The court heard that the child also had sickle cell disease, which complicated the operation and increased the potential need for a blood transfusion.

Both boys were from Jehovah's Witness families, who follow strict Biblical rules, and they refused consent to blood transfusions.

The court heard that medics took extensive steps to reduce the risk facing the three-year-old and took his parent's beliefs into account as much as possible.

In his ruling, Lord Braid said clinicians had gone "above and beyond" to avoid the need for blood products and he was satisfised they would only be used as a last resort.

The third case involved a 10-year-old girl who suffered a fractured wrist and an open wound after being bitten by her family's dog.

She was taken to hospital by her parents, where she received pain relief, antibiotics and had surgery on her wrist.

After surgery, doctors recommended she receive a tetanus jag and a dose of immunoglobulin to provide immediate protection against the potentially fatal infection as she hadn't been vaccinated before.

Her mother refused consent stating she believed the "risk of tetanus was low, and later expressing lack of trust in the vaccine".

They told the court that they lived by the principles of "simplicity, nature and mindful choices" about what they put into their bodies.

They said they preferred natural and holistic approaches to be taken when possible and the bite presented a low risk of harming their daughter.

Lord Braid said this case was "less straightforward" as her parents were "actively opposed" to the treatment and "disputed the medical science".

He authorised the injections and ordered the girl's parents to take her to hospital.

The three cases had been brought to the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court - over a two-week period.