Calgary teen ordered to have blood transfusions (CTV Television Inc.

1. Why did the Alberta Court allow doctors to proceed with the transfusions? Explain.

The Alberta Court permitted the doctors to continue with the transfusion because they believed
her parents' religious beliefs were harmful to the girl's health and authorized them to proceed.
The court was aware that the girl would die if she did not get a blood transfusion and that
delaying the transfusion would also put her life in jeopardy. In addition, the court determined that
the right to life came first, followed by the freedom to profess religion. The physicians were
given a chance to save the child's life due to this.

2. Why is this treatment against the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses? What fundamental
freedom is in violation? Explain your answer using the language of the Charter.

The blood transfusion procedure is incompatible with the girl's religious beliefs, those of
Jehovah's Witnesses. According to that faith, the Bible forbids consuming blood in any form, and
individuals who consent to blood transfusions will not be allowed to enter heaven once they die.
This is a violation of the right to freedom of expression. Conclusion: a person has the freedom to
express the views they choose to believe in whichever manner they see fit. The girl desired the
procedure, but her parents refused to let it. The girl has the right to express herself, but her
parents did not allow her to do so in this case.

3. At what age do you think a minor should be granted the power to decide on matters
related to his or her medical treatment? Explain your point of view.

At the age of 16, a kid should be able to make medical care decisions. Around the age of sixteen,
a person understands what is right and wrong. What they do should contribute to the
improvement of their health. However, there should be certain restrictions. For example, if a
minor believes that they should not get medical treatment and that this would harm their health,
the operation should be performed regardless of their beliefs. That treatment would assist them in
maintaining their health and ensuring their survival.

4. If the 16-year-old in this case challenges the decision as an infringement of her s. 2(a)
Charter right, do you think her appeal will be allowed? Why or why not?

The appeal filed by the 16-year-old should not be granted in this situation. Her health state would
improve as a result of the blood transfusion. However, she is also not considered to be a legally
competent minor. Her choice would be highly influenced by what her parents believe in rather
than what she believes to be correct. Her point of view would be significantly affected by the
beliefs in which she was reared. Over time, someone can accept wrong things and believe that
they are facts. That would ultimately be detrimental to her health status.
 5. Do you agree with the following statement: "In an affidavit from the girl's mother, she
compares the treatment to the way Nazis mistreated Jews"? Explain your point of view.

I take issue with the remark made by the 16-year-mother. Old's The following is her statement:
"In an affidavit from the girl's mother, she compares the treatment to the way Nazis mistreated
Jews." Not only is the analogy incorrect, but it is also very demeaning to the Jewish community.
The Nazis' maltreatment of the Jews was more heinous than a simple blood transfusion. The
transfusion does not affect the girl's health, but the grief endured by the Jews has. That is an
incorrect analogy to the girl's mother; she should have paused before making that comment.