Two more Jehovah's Witness families have been taken to the KZN High Court (Durban) to force them to allow doctors to administer lifesaving blood to their seriously ill children. The two matters were added to the court's roll as a third set of parents planned to defend their refusal to allow their five-year-old son, who suffers from sickle cell anaemia, to receive blood transfusions, notes TimesLIVE.

Jehovah's Witness forbids followers from receiving blood transfusions or blood products.

The KZN Health MEC and a state paediatrician are the applicants in all three cases. The matter of the five-year-old boy was brought to court on 28 September when MEC Sibongiseni Dhlomo and Addington Hospital specialist paediatrician Dr Noxolo Mbadi could 'not allow the child to deteriorate without a blood transfusion, which is the only option to save his life'.

In court papers, Mbadi said sickle cell disease was highly unpredictable and, without a court order, doctors would not be able to save the boy's life because his parents were refusing to consent to a blood transfusion. 'In as much as one respects the religious beliefs of the parents they are regrettably not acting in his best interests by not consenting to a blood transfusion which could save the minor child's life,' she said.

According to the doctor's notes presented to court, the parents understood the seriousness of their child's condition. However, they maintained their position and requested home therapy.

'As a physician it is my responsibility to do what is necessary to save the life of the minor child ... ,' said Mbadi. The court had granted an interim order to allow the boy to receive the lifesaving blood before adjourning the matter to allow the child's parents to file their opposing papers.

Full TimesLIVE report

A father told the court his three-year-old daughter should not receive lifesaving blood as ‘it is not in the Bible’. ‘I am against it and so is my wife. It is against my religion,’ the man is quoted as saying in a second TimesLIVE report. He said he understood that an interim order had been granted, but that he planned to fight it. Representing the parents of the five-year-old boy, Andrew Christison told the court that his clients would oppose the order as there was no longer a need for it.

He said that the child was stable and was now treated as an outpatient. ‘The situation here is that the applicants approached the court saying that this was an emergency situation and that if the child did not get the blood transfusion, the child would die.’ Christison confirmed that the child did not receive the transfusion following the court order; however his condition had improved. ‘This is not a case of the parents refusing medical treatment. They are instead asking for alternatives that are within their rights,’ he said.

Representing Dhlomo, Dashendra Naidoo said the interim order would cover emergencies without having to go to court whenever the children needed blood transfusions. He said all three children were suffering from a condition that was unpredictable therefore an order had to be in place to allow doctors to administer blood transfusions when necessary.

The matter was adjourned to 26 February with the interim order still in place.

Full TimesLIVE report