Court to Weigh Boy’s Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

The state Supreme Court, setting the stage for a unique test of religious freedom, agreed Friday to decide whether a 17-year-old Los Angeles youth can invoke his own biblical beliefs to refuse medical treatment for a life-threatening disease.

The court said it would hear arguments by attorneys for Christopher Lavender and his parents that as a “mature minor” he has the right to decide for himself whether to undergo blood transfusions for an acute form of leukemia.

The justices, in a brief order, set aside a decision by a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles last July upholding a bid by county officials to place Lavender under juvenile court supervision to ensure proper medical treatment.

Courts on occasion have intervened in such cases in the past to order treatment or examinations for minors over the religious objections of parents. But in this case, the objections have been raised by a youth characterized by family lawyers as able to make his own decisions, like an adult.

Los Angeles Senior Deputy County Counsel Joe Ben Hudgens welcomed the court’s decision to review what he called “a very bothersome case.”

“In our view there was a danger of the young man’s death unless he got transfusions,” he said.

Hudgens drew a distinction between this case and the case of Elizabeth Bouvia, a 28-year-old quadriplegic with cerebral palsy who won an appeal court ruling last year granting her the right to refuse unwanted treatment, even if it threatens her life.

“I can understand why a court might take a different view in those circumstances,” he said. “But here there is a good prospect of improvement in the boy’s condition with treatment.”

Attorneys for Lavender and his parents were not available for comment.

The case arose when the county Department of Children’s Services sought to have Lavender declared a dependent of the court after his parents, both Jehovah’s Witnesses, refused to permit the transfusions.

The boy’s attending physician testified that without transfusions he could die, but that with transfusions and other treatment there was a 90% chance of remission of the disease and a 50% chance of a cure.

Under a temporary court order, Lavender received one transfusion, but later Superior Court Judge Michael Pirosh, after hearing testimony from Lavender, ruled that the boy was mature enough to legally refuse treatment.

Lavender told the court that he had studied the Bible regularly since he was 8 years old and believed that he should follow a command of God to “abstain from blood.”

However, the appellate court panel found that while Lavender may be a “thoughtful, mature, devout and sincere 17-year-old,” Judge Pirosh’s order must be overturned in view of the physician’s testimony about the threat to the boy’s life.

In petitions for review to the state Supreme Court, attorneys for Lavender and his parents contend that both the boy and his parents could exercise their rights to religious freedom and privacy to reject the transfusions.

Earlier Decision

They acknowledged a decision earlier this year by a state Court of Appeal in San Francisco finding that courts may order treatment of minors over the objections of parents to ensure against the recurrence of a life-threatening disease.

But that case, the lawyers noted, involved a 6-year-old boy who had undergone surgery for eye cancer and obviously was not in the position to assert his own wishes on the matter.

Lavender’s parents also claimed that they could rightfully prevent the transfusions based on their fear of the risk of the boy’s infection from hepatitis B, AIDS and other diseases. The youth’s physician had testified that all blood products at the hospital where he was being treated had been screened for the AIDS virus.

The boy’s attorney noted that under other laws, some minors--such as married minors or minors in the armed services--are legally able to give give consent for hospital, medical or surgical care without parental permission.

The case will be heard by the justices at an unspecified date, with a decision expected next year.

The order granting review was signed by Justices Allen E. Broussard, John A. Arguelles, David N. Eagleson and Marcus M. Kaufman. Four votes from the seven-member court are required to grant a hearing.