New Zealand Takes Custody Of Ill Baby From Anti-vax Parents
A New Zealand court temporarily took medical custody of a baby away from his parents because they wouldn't give him blood from donors who hadn't been vaccinated against COVID-19.
Author:Rhyley CarneyReviewer:Paula M. GrahamDec 08, 202215.7K Shares275.7K Views
New Zealand takes custody of ill baby from anti-vax parentson Wednesday. The baby's parents had stopped him from getting life-saving heart surgery because possible blood donors might have been vaccinated against the coronavirus.
Six-month-old "Baby W" was put under partial guardianship by the Auckland High Court. This was done so that an urgent operation could be done to fix a heart problem called pulmonary valve stenosis.
The baby's parents stopped the procedure because the blood could have come from a donor who had been injected with an mRNA vaccine.
In a statement, the court said, "The most important question is whether the proposed treatment is in the baby's best interests."
The child is now under the "medical guardianship" of the court until "his surgery is finished" and he is fully recovered, which should be by the end of January at the latest.
New Zealand Takes Custody Of Ill Baby From Anti-vax Parents
🔴 BREAKING: Court grants temporary guardianship of sick baby following blood donor battle | Newshub
A New Zealand court has told health officials to temporarily take care of a child who is at the center of a case about blood transfusions from donors who were vaccinated against Covid-19.
The boy, who is only 4 months old, is in an Auckland hospital because he needs urgent care for a heart problem. His parents had stopped the surgery from happening and asked the court to let him get blood from people who had not been vaccinated.
But the High Court said that the surgery was in the "best interest" of the child. In court documents, the boy is called "Baby W." Justice Ian Gault said that the boy should be in the care of the court "from the date of the order until completion of his surgery and post-operative recovery".
He turned down the parents' request for blood from someone who hadn't been vaccinated and agreed with health officials that the boy's "survival [was] actually dependent on the application being granted".
But he made it clear that the boy's parents were still his main guardians and that doctors had to keep them updated on his treatment and condition at all times. Justice Gault also turned down a request from the parent's lawyer, Sue Grey, to set up a service that would only accept blood from donors who had not been vaccinated.
Ms. Grey said that the vaccine's long-term effects had not been "tested," and she said that doctors were refusing to offer an alternative donor service because of their beliefs.
But lawyers for the state blood service said that setting up a direct donor service would have been a "slippery slope" that would "harm an excellent blood service."
Justice Gault ruled that there was "no scientific evidence that there is any Covid-19 vaccine-related risk from blood donated by vaccinated donors. He did this by using evidence from New Zealand's chief medical officer.
The case has become a rallying point for anti-vaccination activists in New Zealand. Many protesters with signs gathered outside the court on Wednesday before the ruling was made.
During the case, it also came out that the parents had a "support person" with them when they met with doctors at the Starship hospital in Auckland. This person took over the meeting. They said the person made a lot of untrue claims about conspiracies and then said that hospital transfusions were killing children.
Liz Gunn, a former TV host and a leader in the fight against vaccines, told the protesters outside the courthouse after the ruling that the decision was "wrong on every level." Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) said that the case was "difficult for everyone" but that the "health and wellbeing" of all the children in its care was its top priority.
A constitutional law professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, Dr. Philip Joseph, told the BBC that the court's decision was "inevitable given the circumstances."
“„Even parents' rights of freedom of belief must give way to the right to life (a right guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990).- Dr. Philip Joseph
“„There are many precedents where Jehovah's Witness parents have been compelled to allow their children to receive blood transfusions in life threatening situations.- Dr. Philip Joseph
“„There is no material difference between these precedents and the court's ruling in the present case.- Dr. Philip Joseph
Conclusion
The New Zealand High Court will be the baby's temporary guardian because his parents wouldn't let him have life-saving heart surgery using blood from people who had been vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus.
Justice Ian Gault made the decision on Wednesday. The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will stay under the court's care until he has fully recovered from his surgery. According to court documents, the court also chose two doctors to be its agents and watch over the operation and how the blood was given.
Rhyley Carney
Author
Paula M. Graham
Reviewer
Latest Articles
Popular Articles