To the Editors;
Calgary bioethicists, Guichon and Mitchell (1), in their December 2006 article, mis-stated court rulings concerning three mature young women who refused blood transfusions.
‘Case 1’ concerned a 16.5-year-old leukemia patient. The authors omitted that the appeal judge had rejected the religious stereotype which they now urge on the medical community as ‘dangerous’ (2). They ignored the court decisions, which specified that the state-imposed treatment and 38 forced transfusions failed; the patient’s cancer relapsed and the court determined that her case was medically hopeless (3). Guichon did not reveal that she assisted the father in his failed lawsuit against the patient’s doctors, her mother, lawers and her church (4).
‘Case 2’ concerned a 16.5-year-old woman who suffered heavy menstrual bleeds (5). The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the young woman was a mature minor but because she was not 18 years of age yet, Alberta’s child welfare legislation did not permit her to decide. The Court left for another day to decide whether that legislation was constitutionally valid (6).
‘Case 3’ concerned a 14-year-old British Columbia resident who was judicially declared to be a mature minor who was seeking treatment without transfusions for her osteogenic sarcoma. Guichon and Mitchell relied on a newspaper story to impugn counsel for the young woman’s parents. The authors omit the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the Toronto court’s decision, commented adversely on the earlier decision of a British Columbia court and took note that the patient was able to secure successful cancer treatment without transfusions at a respected children’s hospital in New York (USA) (7).
By ignoring crucial aspects of these court decisions, Guichon and Mitchell offered an opinion that was a disservice to physicians, patients and the constitutional values of respect and tolerance.
REFERENCES
- 1.Guichon J, Mitchell I. Medical emergencies in children of orthodox Jehovah’s Witness families: Three recent legal cases, ethical issues and proposals for management. Paediatr Child Health. 2006;11:655–8. doi: 10.1093/pch/11.10.655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.H(B) v Alberta, 2002 ABQB 371, para 36 (see also paras, 1–3,22–42). In M(J) v Alberta, 2004 ABQB 512, para 43, Justice Kent later directed the state and courts to avoid the “paternalistic attitude” that “the doctor has always recommended the only acceptable treatment” and that Jehovah’s Witnesses “are always wrong” in refusing transfusions [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hughes Estate v Hughes, 2006 ABQB 159; Hughes Estate v Hughes, 2006 CarswellAlta 863 (QB) [Google Scholar]
- 4.Affidavit of Juliet Guichon (sworn September 7, 2006) prepared in support of the Plaintiff in Hughes Estate v Hughes, court file no 0601–0169AC [Google Scholar]
- 5.CU v McGonigle, 2000 ABQB 626, paras 3,12 [Google Scholar]
- 6.U(C) v Alberta, 2003 ABCA 66, paras 13–14,26,33,37 [Google Scholar]
- 7.British Columbia v Bahris (2006), 270 DLR (4th) 536, paras 1,4,23,24,27,30,32 (Ontario) [Google Scholar]