In a 6-1 decision Thursday, Canada’s Supreme Court upheld Manitoba’s law that allows a court to order medical treatment for a child under 16 that it considers to be in the child’s best interest, despite the child’s religious objections. In A.C. v. Director of Child and Family Services, (Can. Sup. Ct., June 26, 2009), a case involving a 14-year old Jehovah's Witness who objected to a blood transfusion, Justice LeBel’s opinion for 4 justices concluded that the statute creates a proper constitutional balance between autonomy and the government's interest in protecting a vulnerable child from harm. The opinion held that the "best interest" standard mandated by the law involves a sliding scale of scrutiny, with the child's views becoming more important as the child becomes more mature. A child's religious heritage is one of the factors the court must examine in determining the child's best interest.
A concurring opinion by Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Rothstein concluded that while legislative authorization of treatment over a minor's sincere religious objections amounts to an infringement of religious freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a justifiable infringement. "[T]he objective of ensuring the health and safety and of preserving the lives of vulnerable young people children is pressing and substantial, and the means chosen — giving discretion to the court to order treatment after a consideration of all relevant circumstances — is a proportionate limit on the right."
A dissent by Justice Binnie argued that in the case of a mature minor under 16, as here, rights of autonomy and religious freedom are violated by an irrebuttable presumption that a person under 16 lacks the capacity to make treatment decisions. Reuters on Friday reported on the decision.
