He constitutional Court let jurisprudence by ruling against parents who opposed the blood transfusion that his newborn son needed for religious reasons (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Through the judgment TC/1078/2023, the high court decided that the The interest of the child is above the right to freedom of religion and conscience of the parents.
The event in question occurred last July 14, 2023 when the Office of the Prosecutor for Children and Adolescents of the Province of Santo Domingo received a complaint through the Línea Vida about some parents who did not give their consent for their one day old baby received a blood transfusion to save his life at the National Polyclinic Center.
The newborn had low levels of hemoglobin and high bilirubin. Born with the condition of Alveolar incompatibilitywhich required an immediate blood transfusion. The baby’s parents refused this treatment and went to another doctor who gave him the alternative of being treated with human immunoglobin for three days and phototherapy.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office, in the person of the prosecutor Xarama Saray Guerrero Rojas, filed an appeal for protection before the First Civil Chamber of the Court for Children and Adolescents of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo.
Because there were conflicts of rights in this case, the court decided that the baby should be subjected to alternative treatment and, if it did not have the expected effect, it ordered the immediate transfusion. This decision was taken on July 15.
Given this decision, the Public ministry filed an appeal for review in the constitutional Court on July 21 of that same year.
Sat jurisprudence
By the date on which the constitutional Court issued its decision on August 27, 2023, the ruling of the First Civil Chamber had already been complied with, referring to the administration of treatment with human immunoglobulin and the minor was discharged, however, it decided to issue its ruling for leave jurisprudence and that serves as pedagogical resource for legal scholars.
In its judgmentthe court established that “there were vices” in the decision of the First Civil Chamber that allowed the implementation of an alternative treatment to a scientifically proven procedure for the baby’s illness.
The High Court recognized the rights of parents to profess a religion and act according to their beliefs, protected by Article 45 of the Constitution. However, it pointed out that when it comes to the protection of a minor, the preservation of his or her life and health is above any individual interest of third parties.
“It is imperative to establish that, if it is a minor, the consent referred to in article 42 of the Constitution must be granted by the parents or legal guardians, a decision that must always be directed to consent to the treatment or medical procedure that best guarantees the well-being and preservation of the life of the minorespecially when there is an imminent risk of death,” he said among the reasons for the sentence.
He continued: “In this sense, the exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and worship of the defendants today could not constitute a limitation that put at risk the sacred right to life of the minor, because the particular circumstances of the case showed an extreme situation in which priority had to be given at all times The child’s superior interest and thus, adopt the measure that offered the greatest probability of preserving the life and personal integrity of the minor, which according to the report issued by the Ministry of Public Health, was to carry out the exchange transfusion.”
This is why he ruled in favor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordering the blood transfusion to be carried out and that it is decision govern how subsequent cases in this area should be decided.
In this case, rights such as the freedom of conscience and cults, the human dignitythe right to life, the right to health, and to personal integrity, which are recognized in the normative provisions of articles 45, 5, 37, 61 and 42 of the Constitution Dominican Republic; as well as in Articles 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, 6 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
