Had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine. He is happily married and he and his wife just had a baby. The discussion arose regarding religion and medical care. My friends wife is a Jehovah’s Witness while he is non religious.
His wife’s religion does not believe in blood transfusions and my friend said he would fight tooth and nail if his child needed one in a life or death situation. So the question is what chance would he have to force this medical treatment given the following:
He is the male
They are married and living together
The wife would claim religious freedom
The husband could get a Dr. to claim life or death
The wife could probably get a Dr. to refute that claim
The child too young to have a say
Would it just come down to best lawyer/most money or do state laws vary? Any other variables at play?
Generally speaking, as a practical matter, they’ll get him to sign the consents, she’ll tell the people of her Kingdom Hall she was forced into it over her vehement protestations, and they’ll all pray together for the physical and spiritual health of the child.
As a legal matter, there’s a lot of precedence that you cannot refuse lifesaving treatment on behalf of your child. Every pediatrician who works in a hospital has a judge on speed dial, and will call him day or night if she can’t get a consent signed by at least one parent. The judge will assign a temporary guardian for medical decision making, who will sign whatever the doctor says.
Where things get a little more sticky and interesting is when the medical procedure is not immediately life saving, or if it’s only one of several treatment options, or when it’s an entirely elective procedure, but the parents disagree. That’s when it’s difficult to predict just what a judge will do.
Bolding mine. Basically you are saying BOTH parents would oppose a blood transfusion. Did you mean to say that he would support it, while she would oppose it?
Is it ever necessary to have both parents’ signatures, except maybe in the rare case where it might be part of a divorce agreement that both signatures are needed? Even then, I’d think that in emergency situations, when one parent couldn’t get there in time, it would be OK to proceed with just one signature. (Of course, if one parent has sole custody, then that parent’s signature is necessary, but I presume that if the non-custodial parent has unsupervised visitation, there’s some contingency plan, like a springing power of attorney, where the non-custodial parent can authorize during the time they have visitation, if the other parent can’t be contacted-- correct me if I’m wrong.)
Anyway, when the parents call 911, the father just needs to clue-in EMTs and doctors to come to him and not his wife for the signature if they need authorization for a transfusion specifically, or a blanket authorization for surgery that includes the possibility of transfusion. Just nip the issue in the bud.
Regarding your list, what does “He is the male” have to do with anything? It’s been a long time since children were legally the property of their fathers in the US. Are you posting from outside the US?
I read this as the OP assuming the mother’s wishes are always placed higher than the father’s wishes in anything legal involving kids.
You’re right that that also isn’t always the case in the US. Although an awful lot of divorced fathers seem to think they got second crack at keeping their kids, rather than an equal shot at first crack.
We are friends with a couple who experienced this. Mom is JW, Dad is not. Newborn infant was premature & needed a unit of blood; Mom refused to sign consent; hospital tried to get court order, but before Judge could rule, Dad signed consent & hospital gave the baby the blood. Pissed off Mom later filed a “wrongful life” lawsuit which was dismissed by the judge since Dad signed off on the consent.
Said kid is now 8 or 9 years old and the parents are still together. Not sure how they resolved it within their marriage.
Nope, just need one consent, unless the divorce decree or parenting agreement says otherwise. Mine with my ex, for example, states that we both have equal input into decisions about medical stuff (and school and religion and summer camps and…) So if we were to disagree, we’d be in front of a judge to argue our cases. If we were still married, the doctor would just have the willing parent sign the papers and let us kick each other in court later if we wanted to. We have equal joint physical and legal custody.
Posting from the states… If anything I supplied that info thinking it might hurt to be the male as I believe in many custody scenarios, the male has an uphill fight assuming everything else is equal.
Not that I necessarily think filing the suit was a good thing to do, but you can’t always know until a child is a few years old whether there is any impairment at all, let alone significant impairment.
If I had to guess, the mother expected the suit to get dismissed, or fail, but filed anyway to show her church that she was standing her ground in regard to the transfusion issue, and not hiding behind her husband’s lack of shared faith to get a transfusion for her child.
That’s probably a good guess. Unfortunately I don’t know them well enough to ask for details about how they managed to stay married after this, though I’ve been very curious. Also curious if they will ever tell their daughter what happened.
“Wrongful life” lawsuits are also sometimes an attempt to get money to pay for a child’s therapy, medical equipment, caregiving, etc. in the event of a disability that may have been caused by the medical intervention against the parent’s will. They’re not particularly effective, but they’re attempted.
Some JWs will allow blood transfusions for their children, or a dependent adult who cannot give informed consent. Some will even say, “I’ll be willing to take one only if I am in a situation where I cannot refuse”, i.e. they are unconscious.
