Minors and refusal of treatment: who decides in the best interests of the child?

On 1 June 2012, the Supreme Court in South Australia ordered a four year old girl to receive treatment including a blood transfusion, a treatment her parents had refused to consent to. This child had been diagnosed with leukaemia six weeks earlier and her treating oncologist was concerned her very low haemoglobin level put her at risk of complete organ failure. The parents refused on religious grounds: they were both Jehovah's Witnesses and followed the command in various passages in the Bible that Christians should abstain from blood. Accepting any blood or blood products could mean exclusion from the fellowship. The court heard evidence with treatment the girl had a 90% chance of survival, but would die within weeks if she did not receive a blood transfusion (Silverman 2012). Whilst the parents fully supported most of the treatment plan they did not agree with the proposed blood transfusion and it was this refusal that triggered an application to the Supreme Court for authorisation to treat the child despite the lack of parental consent.