High court ruling says decision was made in youngster’s best interests, despite religious objections from parents

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

A high court judge has ruled that the son of two devout Jehovah’s Witnesses can be given a blood transfusion despite religious objections from his parents.

Mr Justice Moylan was told by doctors that the “very young” boy had suffered severe burns in an accident and might need a blood transfusion.

The judge concluded that a blood transfusion would be in the youngster’s best interests in spite of the “deeply held views” of his mother and father.

Details of the decision have emerged in a written ruling by the judge following a hearing in the family division of the high court in London.

The judge said a health trust with responsibility for treating the boy had asked for a ruling. He did not name anyone involved and did not give the child’s age.

Moylan said he hoped that the boy’s parents would understand.

“I am extremely grateful to [the boy’s] father for so clearly and calmly explaining to me the position held by himself and [the boy’s] mother,” said the judge.

“I have no doubt at all that they love their son dearly. I also have no doubt that they object to the receipt by [their son] of a blood transfusion because of their devout beliefs. I hope they will understand why I have reached the decision which I have, governed as it is [their son’s] welfare.”