no idea where to put this but would a court give permission for child to have blood transfusion

[MollyMoo77]

if parent refused please would they get court to agree or would they take baby off parents to agree really confused about everything thanks for your time

We had a JW child needing major surgery, that blood or cell saver is needed for. He had a court order in place to say that the doctors would give blood if he needed it and he would not be allowed to die for lack of a blood transfusion. His parents were fine with this's with careful management pre op. Blood was avoided but it did hinder his recovery.

If your son has an illness such as leukaemia etc blood is going to be essential and he will be given it. Medical staff will get a court order. A child under 18 can consent for treatment if they are deemed competent but they cannot refuse it.

There is an old film (circa 1962), Called 'Life For Ruth' which deals with the dilemma JW parents face. Although it was made over half a century ago, it is still thought-provoking.

As pp have said, there may be ways to work around a full transfusion, but if it is necessary then it must be given and secular Law will intervene.

If your son is sick and needs blood then surely his right to life trumps everything? Sorry you are going through a tough time, please don't put the doctors in a position where they have to go to court to fight for your son.

If my son was sick I'd want the necessary medical procedures conducted to make him better.
Is someone not allowing your son the ability to get better with a transfusion? That would upset me even as well. Is it the Dad?

I remember seeing that film a very long time ago (not when it first came out though!). I still remember it a bit so it must have been pretty powerful. If you have been brought up to believe that one is genuinely at risk of eternal damnation from using someone else's blood, it's really not as simple as "why wouldn't you save your child's life?" because some things are more important than life; eternal life, if you believe in that, would be much more important. To be fair, I think many if not most of us would agree to some extent that life at all costs is not always a good thing. (Not wanting to stir up a hornet's nest but in light of a, er, recent controversial series of court cases, it seems a fairly mainstream view, though by no means universal.) Whether you or I could get our heads round a religion that forbade using science to save the child's life, when no-one else had to die or be hurt in the process, is not the point. Personally I'm convinced it's one of those misreadings of scripture that end up causing war, oppression and all sorts of things that there's no way Jesus (as portrayed) would have wanted, but there you go.

Some JWs apparently are very happy with the set-up that allows the courts to intervene - their child is safe but they avoid guilt and save face in front of their fellow parishioners.

I always defend someone's right to practice their religion freely, defend their freedom to practice the faith they choose, but not in the event where their child's health is at risk.
In answer to your question, yes the courts could intervene at the request of the doctors, it's unlikely the child would be removed unless the parents were actively blocking treatment.