The Arizona Republic

Parents win treatment-hotline fight

- Ken Alltucker

The parents of a 14-year-old boy with bone cancer won a legal challenge against a Mesa hospital that attempted to override their religious objections to blood transfusio­ns.

The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that a lower court’s hotline used by hospitals to authorize medical treatment on behalf of patients is not allowed under state law.

The parents of a 14-year-old boy with bone cancer challenged Banner Cardon Children’s use of a Maricopa County Superior Court emergency hotline to authorize blood transfusio­ns on behalf of the child. The parents and boy are Jehovah’s Witnesses and objected to blood transfusio­ns on religious grounds.

While Banner Cardon’s medical treatment plan initially consisted of alternativ­e therapies to fit the parents’ religious views, hospital staff later determined that blood transfusio­ns were medically necessary.

Hospital staff called the Maricopa County Superior Court hotline multiple times from October through December last year to seek authorizat­ion for the blood transfusio­ns. The court granted three of five requests, according to court documents.

The parents filed a petition with the Arizona Court of Appeals seeking to

halt the transfusio­ns.

The parents, identified as Glenn and Sonia H., argued that the Superior Court hotline “lacked jurisdicti­on” for such emergency requests and also argued that hospital staffers did not justify the medical need for blood transfusio­ns.

The lower court said that such emergency requests were “standard practice” nationwide and the hotline rotated among Superior Court judges who answered requests after hours.

In an opinion written by Judge Kenton D. Jones, the appellate court concluded that the question of whether the lower court had jurisdicti­on to OK emergency medical treatment was one “of significan­t statewide importance.”

Jones noted that Arizona law allows a Juvenile Court that has jurisdicti­on over a child to order a parent or guardian to get medical treatment for a child. However, the appellate court did not find any such jurisdicti­on for a Superior Court emergency hotline.

“Our review of Arizona statutes and rules of procedure reveals no provision ... authorizin­g the superior court to maintain an emergency hotline for the purpose of ordering medical treatment for a non-consenting minor,” Jones wrote.

Therefore, the lower court’s order authorizin­g medical treatment on behalf of the boy is void, the appellate court said.

The parents filed the appellate-court action in November but did not request a stay of the lower court’s order. The boy received blood transfusio­ns on Dec. 1 and Dec. 5 before his parents relocated his care to a medical facility in Portland, Oregon.

Banner Health officials said the health-care provider has not yet decided whether to appeal the appellate court’s decision.

Representa­tives of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, which filed a legal brief on behalf of the parents, did not immediatel­y return a message seeking comment.

A Jehovah’s Witnesses website said the religion considers blood transfusio­ns a “religious issue rather than a medical one,” citing multiple biblical passages.

Patients who develop certain types of cancer, such as leukemia, often require blood transfusio­ns as a part of treatment.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States