Suit Says Baby's Seizure Violated Rights

By ANNA JO BRATTON, Associated Press Writer, Medicine & Health / Other

Mary Anaya holds her 6-week-old son Joel, in Omaha, Neb., Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007. The baby is home after sheriff's deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy's parents object to on religious grounds.(AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

(AP) -- A Nebraska couple sued state health officials Thursday, arguing their rights were violated when their newborn baby was seized by sheriff's deputies so a mandatory blood test could be performed.

Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .

ť Next Article in Medicine & Health - Other: First IVM babies born in United Kingdom

would you recommend this story?

User Rating

4.4 out of 5 after 5 total votes

not at all
1
2
3
4
5
highly

Leave a Comment or

Flag

Posted by Argiod 10/27/07 19:31

Not rated yet.

One more time: you only have those rights that the government allows you to have; constitution notwithstanding.

"The law is a matter of interpretation. And it is the King's men who do the interpreting."
Robin of Locksley
aka Robin the Hood

Flag

Posted by HarryStottle 11/10/07 10:05

Not rated yet.

This article raises some fundamental issues.

First and foremost it exposes the absence of democracy. When were Nebraskans ever asked to consider the forceful imposition of medical tests on newborns? They obviously weren't so any form of resistance by the parents would have been ethical, even if unwise - given their inability to outgun the state.

However, imagine that the policy had been introduced with legitimate democratic support. This should include the right of dissenters to veto their participation (as I've outlined here: http://snipurl.com/1tfez ) but that right only logically applies to their own autonomy. In other words, we could individually refuse to have blood samples taken or whatever, but we can't logically refuse on behalf of third parties.

The question then arises as to who best represents the interests of a third party who cannot represent themselves (in this case the newborn child) in regard to a medical intervention (of any kind). If your answer to that is "obviously the parents" then you would have to permit a Jehova's Witness to allow their child to die for want, say, of a blood transfusion (which the Witnesses believe to be against their "Lord's Will").

For me, that refusal to allow life saving blood transfusion is in the same league as religious indocrination of young children. It is clearly child abuse and should be deterred with the same vigour we try to deter paedophilia. The question is, does a mere blood test belong in the same category?

The answer to that surely depends on what the test enables. If the test merely warns us that the subject will suffer from a disease or illness which we can do nothing about, then we cannot make a case for imposing it. On the other hand, if the test warns of potential problems which we can do something to avoid, then with-holding the test would indeed constitute potential child abuse.