New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Blood transfusion

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2023

TE WHATU ORA HEALTH NEW ZEALAND TE TOKA TUMAI AUCKLAND v A and N [2023] NZHC 1864

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1864
Court

High Court

Given credible medical evidence establishing a real and substantial risk that M will require blood transfusion during chemotherapy and liver surgery and that transfusion is necessary to avoid life‑threatening complications, it is in M's best interests to place him under the guardianship of the Court and to appoint the treating doctors as agents to consent to blood and blood products, subject to defined scope and time limits.
7 Dec 2022

TE WHATU ORA, HEALTH NEW ZEALAND, TE TOKA TUMAI v C and S [2022] NZHC 3283

Citation

[2022] NZFLR 398
Court

High Court

Given the urgent need for cardiac surgery and the lack of credible, clinician-supported evidence that NZBS blood from vaccinated donors poses a risk to Baby W, and because directed donation was not shown to be a safe, practical or comprehensive alternative for the range of blood and plasma products required, it is in Baby W's best interests to place him under the guardianship of the Court and to appoint the treating clinicians as the Court's agents to consent to surgery and associated administration of blood and blood products in accordance with good clinical practice; joinder of NZBS and man…
26 Feb 2020

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v S & MD [2020] NZHC 300

Citation

[2020] NZHC 300
Court

High Court

Given the established and substantial risk that the child would require blood or blood products in the course of necessary chemotherapy and related procedures, and because transfusion would be necessary to avoid death or serious harm, the child's welfare and best interests required vesting guardianship in the High Court and empowering medical agents to consent to blood transfusions despite parental religious refusal; parental religious rights do not permit choices that place the child's life at risk.
22 Aug 2013

Auckland District Health Board v E [2013] NZHC 2154

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2154
Court

High Court

Because there was a real and substantial risk that the child would require blood transfusion in the course of accepted medical treatment for neuroblastoma and because transfusion was necessary to avoid life‑threatening complications and to allow curative treatment with a high chance of long‑term survival, the Court, applying the paramountcy of the child's welfare under s4 and the Re J two‑step test, validly placed the child under guardianship and appointed the treating physicians as court agents to consent to blood and blood product transfusions limited to treatment consented to by the parent…
27 Jun 2012

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD V W AND W HC AK CIV-2012-404-3646

Citation

openlaw-317364f7_383c_48f9_bd59_72bea58f827b.pdf
Court

High Court

Where a child's life or long‑term health depends on medical treatment that will require blood transfusion and the parents refuse consent on religious grounds, the Court may, if it is satisfied the orders are in the child's best interests, place the child under the guardianship of the Court and appoint agents to consent to the necessary treatment; here the imminent risk of death and substantial chance of successful transplant justified making the orders sought.
27 Apr 2007

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD V AZ AND BZ HC AK CIV-2007-404-2260

Citation

openlaw-71b80366_abcc_4e29_b087_7884446c9156.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying the Care of Children Act paramountcy of the child's welfare, the Court found that urgent intensive chemotherapy offered Z a realistic chance of survival and that there was a substantial and imminent likelihood that such treatment would necessitate blood or blood product transfusion; because parental refusal would place Z at high risk of death and the treatment was in her best interests the Court lawfully appointed the doctors as agents to consent to and administer chemotherapy and necessary transfusions and placed Z under the guardianship of the Court for the treatment period.
6 Sept 2001

Love v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 248
Court

District Court

Contemporaneous clinical records, reviewed and confirmed by independent medical experts, contained no record of a blood transfusion in July 1982; the appellant\'s post hoc assertion (the matron\'s alleged remark) did not outweigh the contemporaneous evidence; therefore the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her HCV resulted from a transfusion during treatment and the claim for medical misadventure fails.

New Zealand Case Law

TE WHATU ORA HEALTH NEW ZEALAND TE TOKA TUMAI AUCKLAND v A and N [2023] NZHC 1864

TE WHATU ORA, HEALTH NEW ZEALAND, TE TOKA TUMAI v C and S [2022] NZHC 3283

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v S & MD [2020] NZHC 300

Auckland District Health Board v E [2013] NZHC 2154

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD V W AND W HC AK CIV-2012-404-3646

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD V AZ AND BZ HC AK CIV-2007-404-2260

Love v Accident Compensation Corporation