Court says transfusion for child was correct

The state Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that a Las Vegas hospital was correct in giving a newborn a blood transfusion despite the parents' objections on religious grounds.

The court upheld the 2001 decision of a district judge in Las Vegas who named Valley Hospital as the temporary guardian of a baby identified as H.S. when the baby's parents, Jason and Rebecca Soto, opposed giving blood transfusions that doctors said were necessary to keep the baby alive.

The court, in its unanimous decision, said right of the Sotos to practice "their religion must also give way to the child's welfare."

In the precedent-setting opinion on the Sotos' appeal, the state Supreme Court justices noted that a similar situation could happen again, so they said the various interests needed to be weighed in cases such as this one.

"Here, the child's interest in self-preservation and the state's interest in protecting the welfare of children and the integrity of medical care outweigh the parents' interest in the care, custody and management of their children and their religious freedom," the court said.

The Sotos are Jehovah's Witnesses and Rebecca Soto said Tuesday that as a Jehovah's Witness she doesn't "believe in that," referring to the blood transfusions.

"Back then I would rather we went with no transfusion," she said. Lawyers for the parents had argued that the hospital should have notified state Child Protective Services, which could have acted as a buffer between the hospital and the parents.

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses had filed a friend-of-the-court brief that said the religion has no objections to conventional medicine, but the Witnesses obey a scriptural directive to "keep abstaining from blood."

The child who received the blood transfusion will turn 3 in June and is healthy, Rebecca Soto said.

Soto had given birth to twins on June 11, 2001, and one was stillborn. Doctors successfully revived the stillborn baby seven minutes after birth. That infant -- who weighed just 2 pounds 11 ounces -- remained critically ill, requiring a ventilator to assist his breathing and medications to help his circulation and heartbeat.

The baby's blood platelet count continued to drop and Dr. Martha Knutsen believed the child might die if a transfusion were not immediately performed, so the transfusion took place without parental consent.

The baby remained in critical condition, and the parents refused to consent to additional medical treatment, so Valley Hospital petitioned District Judge Gerald Hardcastle for temporary guardianship. The judge ruled that the parent's refusal to consent to treatment put the child's life at risk. Hardcastle granted temporary guardianship on an emergency basis to the hospital without first notifying the parents. But he ordered the Sotos be notified as soon as possible and scheduled a hearing for the next day.

The Supreme Court said Hardcastle took "numerous steps to protect the interests of the child and the parents" including scheduling court hearings for the parents to present their case before he reached a final decision.

"While a parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody and management of his child, that interest is not absolute," justices wrote. "The state also has an interest in the welfare of children and may limit parental authority, even permanently depriving parents of their children."

Since the infant was unable to make decisions for himself, "the state's interest is heightened," the court said. "Jason and Rebecca's liberty interest in practicing their religion must also give way to the child's welfare."

"Additionally, the state has an interest in protecting the ethical integrity of the medical profession, and in allowing hospitals the full opportunity to care for patients under their control, especially when medical science is available to save that patient's life."

Using a balancing test in the Soto case, justices said, "the combined weight of the interests of the child and the state are great and, therefore, mandate interference with Jason and Rebecca's parental rights."com