Court Asked If Refusal Of Transfusion Was Neglect

Press, Volume C, Issue 29643, 13 October 1961, Page 14

Court Asked If Refusal Of Transfusion Was Neglect

(New Zealand Press Association

AUCKLAND, Oct. 12. The Auckland district child welfare officer today asked the Children’s Court to determine whether or not the refusal of the parents of an eight-weeks-old boy to authorise a blood transfusion constituted neglect within the meaning of the Child Welfare Act. The officer, Kenneth Jones Flint, further sought an order from the Court, if neglect was found, to protect the child from such similar neglect in the future. The action is believed to be the first of its kind in this country. The child’s father is denying any neglect and the Court has been told that the child was given a blood transfusion. Flint is the complainant in the action and the child’s father is represented by Dr. A. M. Finlay. Mr K. Forrest is appearing for the Auckland Hospital Board, and Mr A. A. Coates, S.M., is on the Bench. The Court adjourned this afternoon, after hearing. evidence by witnesses called by Flint. The hearing will be continued tomorrow. Warrant Obtained Flint said the substance of the complaint was that on October 5 he received information that the child was in Auckland Hospital. A blood transfusion was required immediately, if its life was to be saved. He also received information that the parents had refused to give consent to the transfusion. He then swore a complaint under section 13 of the Child Welfare Act. He also applied for, and obtained, a warrant under section 32 of the same act. Leo Phillips, a pediatric physician at Auckland Hospital, said he saw the child first on October 4. at the request of another doctor. He

was told that the child had been yellow and jaundiced for two days. The child appeared to be deeply jaundiced and pale. Labatory tests confirmed his diagnosis. Phillips said he arranged for the child to be admitted to hospital. He warned the superintendent that a blood transfusion would be almost certainly necessary. He said he felt the child may need to be placed under the care of the Child Welfare Department for consent to the transfusion to be obtained. Flint: Would you be prepared to suggest to the Court how long you would have expected this baby to live had it not had a transfusion on the Thursday morning? Phillips: I don’t think it is possible to say. But there would be a severe risk of it succumbing in the next 24 to 48 hours.” To Dr. Finlay, Phillips said there was nothing to indicate that the child had been neglected in the ordinary sense of the word. After blood tests had been carried out at the laboratory, he told the child’s parents that if the blood count continued to fall, the only remedy, in his view, would be a transfusion. Religious Objections Dr. Finlay: I think you were then told, if you did not know already, that the parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses and they had a deeply-rooted objection to that? Phillips: Yes. Alice Mary Bush, senior pediatrician at the hospital, gave similar evidence. To Dr. Finlay,' Bush said that had blood transfusions not been available the child would not have survived.

David Robertson Goodfellow, medical superintendent at Auckland Hospital, said he gave final approval for the transfusion to be given. He did this after Mr Flint had told him he had a warrant. Peter Hinds, pediatric registrar at the hospital, said the condition of the child today was quite good, although if was still pale and still anaemic. The jaundice had entirely faded. Flint, in evidence, said he received information on October 3 that the child was dangerously ill with haemolytic anaemia, and that members of the hospital staff considered a blood transfusion .urgently necessary in an effort to prolong or save the child's life. He swore out- a complaint alleging that the father of the child had neglected it. The basis of the complaint was the father’s reported refusal to allow a blood transfusion. Hospital Advised Immediately after the warrant had been issued, Flint said, he rang the medical superintendent and told him the warrant was in his possession. He told the superintendent that, by virtue of the warrant, he had custody of the child and he authorised a blood transfusion or any other medical treatment that might be considered necessary in the child’s interests. Flint said he told the father he had authorised the giving of a blood transfusion. He then went to the hospital and the child appeared to be very ill indeed. He went to the hospital again next day and the child appeared to have made a great improvement.