The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court decision refusing to allow the North Western Health Board to carry out a blood screening test on a newborn boy against his parents’ wishes.
The case concerned J.W., born in 2000, whose parents H.W. and C.W. refused consent for the standard heel-prick PKU screening test. They were prepared to provide hair or urine samples but objected to blood being taken by an invasive procedure.
The screening programme tests newborns for conditions including phenylketonuria, homocystinuria and hypothyroidism. Medical evidence was unanimous that early diagnosis was beneficial because untreated conditions could cause serious and irreversible harm. However, there was no specific reason to suspect that J.W. had any of them, and there was no relevant family history.
The Health Board asked the courts to permit the blood test despite the parents’ refusal. The High Court rejected that application in October 2000, and the Board appealed.
Mrs Justice Susan Denham held that the issue could not be decided solely by asking whether the medical benefits outweighed the physical risks of the heel prick. The Constitution also required consideration of parental responsibility, the child’s individual rights and his rights within the family.
The court said State intervention contrary to parental decisions was justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as an immediate threat to a child’s life or serious health. That threshold had not been reached here.
The judgment stressed that J.W.’s parents were otherwise caring and conscientious and that the Health Board had no complaint about the care they provided. Once fully informed of the medical advice, responsibility for the decision remained with them.
The court also noted that PKU screening was not compulsory under Irish law. Ordering the test in these circumstances could effectively establish a general rule making it compulsory without legislation.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the parents’ refusal in place.