Cases of granting “medical guardianship” over children covered the world

On Friday, December 9, foreign media happily announced the successful operation of a 6-month-old baby. The news seems common if you don’t know the context: previously, the baby’s parents refused to have a heart operation, demanding that only the blood of unvaccinated donors be used. The court granted the doctors guardianship over the child to be able to carry out the necessary manipulations. It turned out that this was not the first time such a measure had been used.

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, a New Zealand Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of the health authorities seeking custody of a six-month-old boy so his open-heart surgery could be performed at Starship Hospital in Auckland, British newspaper The Guardian reported on Friday, 9 December. The situation escalated, because the newborn would not have survived without an urgent operation, he suffered from a congenital heart disease. The absurdity of the situation was that his parents refused to give their consent to medical intervention. The reason is no less impressive: they demanded a guarantee that their child would receive blood only from unvaccinated donors.

By decision of the Supreme Court, the boy was placed under the care of a pediatric cardiac surgeon and a cardiologist so that the operation could continue. The guardianship will last until his postoperative recovery, probably no later than January 2023. Parents, however, retain custody in all other matters.

When Thursday (the day of the operation) arrived, the couple, through their own lawyer, said they would not appeal the decision and would prioritize “peaceful time with their child before surgery and support during surgery.” However, the surrealism continued.

On the same day, Judge Ian Gault was forced to issue a protocol ordering parents to allow doctors to prepare for surgery after health officials said they were obstructing staff doing blood tests, chest x-rays, and anesthesia assessments.

Gault indicated that the question of the operation itself was not discussed in the original question, but now the parents “apparently do not give consent to the operation or preoperative checks” and therefore he will need to give additional instructions to be allowed to proceed with the operation.

It is clear that such a case has the potential to have wide-ranging consequences and attract the attention of the entire world. The reaction, by the way, is already there: on Friday morning, several dozen protesters against vaccination and groups of supporters of unfortunate parents gathered near the hospital.

But few people know that this case is not the first and certainly not the last.

In a similar case earlier this year, an Italian court ruled against the parents of a two-year-old boy who demanded doctors only use blood transfusions from unvaccinated donors. The child needed urgent heart surgery.

In this situation, the parents bothered to put forward a whole list of 40 unvaccinated people who were ready to donate their blood. But, as in New Zealand, Italy’s blood service told the court that using the blood of unvaccinated people had no scientific basis because the vaccine was not transmitted by transfusion.

The situation is similar in the US and Canada. Healthcare professionals are increasingly reporting patients who require unvaccinated blood. And in the UK last month, the government rejected a petition asking for a separate blood service for those not vaccinated against COVID-19. But the trend still gradually covers different countries.

But still, a fair question remains: does the court have the right to give guardianship to completely strangers?

New Zealand has it. Under the Child Care Act 2004, the court has the power to appoint a guardian either generally or for a specific purpose. All this is done for the well-being of the child, since the interests of the little ones are given “paramount attention.”

In the incident, Judge Jan Gault placed the child under the care of a pediatric cardiac surgeon and cardiologist “for the purpose of agreeing to an operation to remove the obstruction and all medical issues associated with this operation, including blood transfusion.”

However, even for this island nation, the case is unprecedented. Previously, the courts intervened in such cases only because of the religious beliefs of the parents. For example, in 2013, the 10-month-old daughter of a Jehovah’s Witnesses (an extremist organization banned in Russia – MK) was placed under the care of the Supreme Court for nine months so that doctors could cure her of cancer.

In 2015, a father refused medication for his HIV-positive son because he thought it would kill his child. The court ruled in favor of the doctors.

Experts in this field confirm that the actions of the judge were fully justified and consistent with the law. “On very rare occasions when it comes to a life-and-death situation, we can expect the courts to step in, and that’s exactly what happened,” says Josephine Johnston, professor of bioethics at the University of Otago.

The only question that remains is how quickly will such a “refusal fashion” spread around the world? Incidentally, according to New Zealand’s Department of Health, the country has relatively high COVID vaccination rates, with about 90% of people aged 12 and over receiving two shots, and more than 70% of eligible adults receiving their first booster shot. Knowing these figures, it is gratifying to realize that there was an opportunity to save a very small person.