Irish Court Stops PKU TESTS  
  

bullet1 Irish Court Stops PKU TESTS

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abridged/323/7322/1149

BMJ 2001;323:1149 ( 17 November )

See end commments:


News

News roundup

Couple has the right to refuse test on newborn child.  IF taking a few drops of blood from a child's heel is forbidden by protection of the Courts, then why not also taking 20 to 50 percent total blood volume by hasty umbilical cord clamping?  


The Irish Supreme Court has supported the rights of a couple who refused to allow doctors to carry out a screening test on their newborn baby.

It rejected a challenge from one of the country's health boards to the refusal of a couple to allow a phenylketonuria (PKU) screening test to be carried out on their infant son.

The court said the North Western Health Board (NWHB) was effectively seeking to have the test made compulsory. That, said Ms Justice Denham, would have "a far-reaching" effect, turning into law something which was presently only departmental policy and would also establish "a very low threshold" for court intervention in future cases involving children.

Mr Justice Hardiman, calling the case "utterly novel," said the move to perform a treatment without consent was "a trespass, a battery and a breach of constitutional rights."


Doug Payne, Dublin


© BMJ 2001


From the researcher:  www.123babybirth.com

    If a maverick couple can apply to the Court to Protect Their Baby Before Injury was Intended to happen to the baby, when other means of test the baby without drawing blood were available, then we in Canada must be able to apply to our Courts on behalf of babies, and stop the clamping of the pulsating cord.   We too, can require protection of our babies in any kind of birth, including an emergency care to be provided while the baby is on its lifeline.   This means for all deliveries including the c-section babies are NOT to be clamped off their pulsating cords, and premature babies protected too, and NOT put down like dogs or endangered.  There is concern there is ploys to endanger the c-section babies simply to take their blood having more cord stem cells quantity then a full-term baby has.   The duty is to make the best practice possible choices, informed choices with the least risk of endangering to all babies, on a global scale.  If we do not do that, what kind of society will we live in tomorrow?  Who could we trust in the medical controls around the world.  Would we know the facts of organs taken out of our bodies, were they really diseased, and were other organs taken out that should not have been?

    Think about it?  If we do not protect babies, who will protect us?