The High Court authorised an urgent blood transfusion for an eight-month-old baby after doctors warned that she faced a serious risk of death from acute splenic sequestration linked to sickle cell disease.
Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, made the orders on May 15 after an emergency hearing concerning the child, identified only as FB. The hospital where she was being treated is redacted in the judgment.
FB had been admitted the previous morning with viral-like symptoms. Blood tests later showed her haemoglobin had fallen as low as 5.3 g/dl before measuring 5.6 g/dl at 12.30pm on the day of the hearing. Medical evidence was that a level of 6 g/dl or below normally indicated a need for transfusion in her circumstances.
Two consultant doctors told the court that acute splenic sequestration can cause haemoglobin levels to fall suddenly, leading to heart or other organ failure, brain damage or death. They said there was no suitable non-blood alternative that could address the immediate crisis.
FB's mother, identified as JB, opposed the transfusion on religious grounds and wanted other treatments and an opportunity to care for the baby herself. The judge stressed that he was not criticising her generally and that the court's intervention related solely to consent for the transfusion.
Applying Supreme Court principles governing medical treatment disputes involving children, Mr Justice Barniville found clear and convincing evidence that refusing the treatment would prejudicially affect FB's safety, welfare and life.
The court took FB into wardship for the limited purpose of allowing clinicians to administer medically necessary blood products and associated procedures, including repeat transfusions if required. FB was also ordered to remain in hospital until medically discharged.
The case was set for review on June 5. A postscript records that the transfusion was subsequently carried out and that FB was recovering well.