A premature baby must be given a life-saving blood transfusion despite the religious objections of its parents, the High Court ruled at a special sitting on Christmas Eve.
Mr Justice George Birmingham directed that the transfusion be made only if doctors at the National Maternity Hospital considered it absolutely necessary to save the boy child, identified as "Baby B."
Paul Anthony McDermott, counsel for the hospital, said Baby B had been born prematurely to a Polish woman in a midlands hospital on December 20th at only 30 weeks.
The child had been transferred for special treatment relating to intestinal problems, initially to Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, and later to the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin.
JFA Murphy, a consultant neo-natologist at the National Maternity Hospital, told Judge Birmingham that Baby B had developed necrotising enterocolitis involving internal bleeding and was undergoing the highest category of treatment in the hospital's intensive care unit.
He said that because the child was so small, if he became anaemic, which could happen very quickly, he could require an immediate blood transfusion.
Mr Murphy said both the hospital and the parents were happy regarding the use of blood products in the treatment of Baby B, but if it was necessary to carry out a blood transfusion, the hospital would require a court order.
Mr McDermott, who was instructed by Beauchamps solicitors, said that where it would become necessary for a blood transfusion the parents, who held their own religious beliefs, might object to it and it would be necessary for the court order to be put in place.
When he said the reaction of the parents to a court order was unknown, a man stood up at the back of the court and identified himself as Harry Homan, a member of the Dublin Hospitals Liaison Committee.
He said he had been contacted by the parents, who were making their way to Dublin as the court sat, and they wished to be able to make their views known to the court.
They had expressed disappointment at the application to the court having gone ahead in their absence.
Judge Birmingham said the matter was extremely urgent, but his understanding was that although the child was not at immediate risk, the court order was being sought in case Baby B's condition deteriorated over the holiday period.
He said Mr Murphy and the hospital were very conscious of the conscientious objections of the parents and were prepared to use blood product as distinct from a blood transfusion.
However, it was the medical evidence that as a matter of overwhelming probability a blood transfusion would be necessary, in the region of between 90 and 95 per cent.
Judge Birmingham told Mr Homan he was minded to make an order couched in terms that if an emergency developed that could not be responded to in any other way, then as a last resort the hospital would be entitled to carry out a transfusion.
He said he would adjourn the matter until Friday, December 28th, to give the parents an opportunity to take legal advice and present their views to the court.
The order regarding a blood transfusion would have to be put in place in case an emergency developed during the course of the Christmas period, he said
Judge Birmingham directed the National Maternity Hospital to provide all necessary care for Baby B, including if necessary a blood transfusion.
He further directed that the transfusion be carried out only when it was the case that no alternative method of treatment was regarded as viable and that it was necessary for the safety of Baby B.