The High Court has refused, for now, to join the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Ireland in proceedings over a hospital’s application to give a patient a blood transfusion against her religious beliefs.
Mr Justice Clarke ruled on 7 December 2006 that the Society had not shown a direct interest in the subject matter that would justify joining it as a co-defendant or notice party. Its members’ potential exposure to principles established in the case amounted to a precedent interest, he said, rather than a direct interest in the dispute.
The Society also sought to participate as an amicus curiae, a non-party assisting the court. The judge found that the Society was likely to take a partisan position similar to the patient’s, that the case could involve disputed facts, and that its participation was not shown to add a perspective or resources unavailable to the patient. He rejected the application at this stage, while allowing the Society to renew it later if the circumstances changed. Any application to join an appeal would have to be made to the Supreme Court.
The substantive proceedings arose after a patient, identified as Ms K., suffered a severe haemorrhage following childbirth at the Coombe Women’s Hospital in September 2006. The judgment says she appeared to have declined a transfusion as a Jehovah’s Witness. On an urgent ex parte application, Mr Justice Abbott had made an order authorising the hospital to provide appropriate treatment, including blood products, and to use restraint if necessary. The December ruling concerned only the Society’s participation; it did not decide the underlying dispute about treatment or religious freedom.
The hospital’s claims sought authority to treat Ms K. and declarations concerning its ability to apply to court, the court’s power to grant relief, and the relationship between freedom of religion and the State’s obligations to protect life and family rights. Mr Justice Clarke said the trial court might be constrained by the facts of this individual case when deciding what declarations to make. He did not make a finding on the scope of any eventual relief.
The judge also addressed two other Jehovah’s Witness patients at the hospital who were expected to give birth soon. He said they could have standing to bring a counterclaim, and could be joined as co-plaintiffs to Ms K.’s counterclaim, if they wished. His reasoning was that a similar emergency could leave no practical opportunity for a considered hearing before an interim decision effectively resolved the issue for them. No counterclaim or joinder order for those patients is reported in this judgment.