CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

HELENA VAN BEERSEL KREJČÍKOVÁ CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ in cases of emergency (notably danger to the patient’s health or life), or when referral to another healthcare provider is not possible (in particular, when there is no equivalent practitioner within reasonable distance) and how is the oversight and monitoring provided. 36 4. Recognising Religious Beliefs of Minor Patients and their legal guardians in the Czech Republic Not many cases concerning conflicting cultural and religious perspective have been brought in front of the Czech courts, especially not involving minors. The three main exceptions would be the case of a Jehovah’s Witness suffering from cancer in need of a blood transfusion and the cases of children whose parents, out of their religious beliefs or conscience (moral reasons), refused to subject the children to childhood vaccination which is mandatory in the Czech Republic. These cases, which were brought in front of the Czech Constitutional Court, are going to be briefly discussed further in this paper with the emphasis on the religious (conscientious respectively) aspect of the cases. 37 4.1 The Case of patient D.J. (III. ÚS 459/03) Patient D.J., a six-year-old boy, was treated in F.N.B. hospital after being diagnosed with a highly malignant cancer that would irreversibly lead to the patient’s death if not adequately treated. Part of the treatment consisted of providing the patient with blood derivatives. The parents of the patient, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gave their consent to the treatment, however, the had shown a highly reserved attitude towards the use of blood derivatives from the beginning of the treatment. After the child’s condition worsened and another block of chemotherapy had to be given (and a blood transfusion), which at the time had no other effective alternative, the parents refused the blood transfusion out of religious belief and required only palliative treatment for the son, alleviating pain. In accordance with the Act on socio-legal protection of children, the hospital notified the municipal authority for socio-legal protection of children who filled a motion for ordering an interim measure under S. 76a of the Civil Procedure Code. The goal of the interim measure was that another person other than the parents would be entrusted with the care of the child, as the parental decision on denying the child the access to the only potentially life-saving treatment constituted a severe threat to the child’s health and life. By a municipality court order, 38 the child was entrusted to the care of the F.N.B. hospital. Later on, this decision was upheld by an appellate court, which resulted in the parents bringing the case in front of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (further also referred to as Court), claiming that the right to exercise their parental responsibility (i.e., their right to privacy and private life) had been breached. They argued that it was not their action which was threatening the life of their son, it was the illness itself. 36 As recommended in the Report by (Former) Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. Council of Europe, 2010, on unregulated use of conscientious objection in healthcare. Available online from http://assembly.coe. int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=12506&lang=en. 37 For more thorough analysis, see the other texts available in this issue of of the Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law , namely HOLČAPEK, T. Futile Medical Care: Children, Parents and Courts, ŠUSTEK, P. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Best Interests of the Child, and ŠOLC, M. Compulsory Vaccination of Minors in the Czech Republic. 38 An interim measure under S. 76a of the Act No. 99/1963 Sb., Civil Procedure Code.

292