On Friday, 19July 2024, the Constitutional Court (TC) ruled that a child’s life is above the religious beliefs of the parents. This is a major decision that has stirred up debates. The case revolves around what happens when physicians order a blood transfusion but this clashes with the parents’ beliefs. The parents of the child in question are members of the Jehovah’s Witness, refused on religious grounds.
Anonymous calls to the Prosecutors Office for Boys, Girls and Adolescents for the province of Santo Domingo had reported that a baby needed transfusions due to low levels of hemoglobin and high levels of bilirubin in addition to incompatibility of the Rh factors, but the parents were refusing the transfusion citing religious grounds.
Prosecutor Xarama Saray Guerrero Rojas filed an appeal with the Children’s Court of Santo Domingo. Since there were conflicts of interest the court decided that an alternative remedy suggested by a doctor should be tried first, and if that was not successful, then the transfusion was to be used.
Because of the implications of this case, the Justice Department asked the Constitutional Court to review the case in July of 2023. By the time the TC issued its decision, the doctors had followed the ruling by the lower court, and the child had received the alternative immunoglobin treatment and was released from the hospital.
As a result, the nation’s highest court on constitutional issues decided to issue its verdict as a manner of establishing judicial precedence and also serve as a pedagogical resource for future law students. The judges looked at Article 45 of the Dominican Constitution that covers freedom of religious beliefs and noted that when dealing with the protection of the life of a minor, the preservation of the life and health of that minor was above any individual interests or beliefs of third parties.
Examining other articles of the Constitution, the court stated that consent of parents or guardians cannot be a limiting factor when it comes to the life of a minor. The Constitutional Court thereby confirmed the decision of the lower court to order the blood transfusion and stated that this decision was to be used in future, similar, cases.
By Saturday, 20 July 2024 the story broke in the media with several writers questioning the high court’s decision. Constitutional lawyer Eduardo Jorge Prats noted that the Constitution does not establish a hierarchy of values so that in one case a right might prevail over another. Other lawyers noted that the decision is certainly a precedent and should be noted in any similar case.
Read more in Spanish:
Diario Libre
Diario Libre
Diario Libre
Jehovah Witness
22 July 2024