4

The question is, as indicated in the title, whether there's a law anywhere in the world that would require parents - explicitly or implicitly - to donate blood (or even organs) to their children if

  • They are compatible donors,
  • The child's life is in critical danger, and
  • The parent will, with reasonable likelihood, not suffer any damage

I would be surprised if there was an explicit law on that. If it could be proved, however, that such a procedure (e.g. drawing blood) would not place any undue burden on the parents, I wonder whether it would fall under some form of an obligation to care for your child.

I also doubt that there's a lot of court cases out there where the parents outright refused and got sued, but I don't know whether there is something out there.

We are of course operating under the assumption that the child is a minor so that the parents are legally obliged to ensure their well-being.

Even if there is no definite answer out there, substantiated opinions are appreciated.

Improve this question
5
  • If you use a certain, controversial definition of "child" and a broad definition of donating blood, does banning abortion count here?
    – Comic Sans Seraphim
    Commented Feb 8, 2018 at 14:54
  • @Studoku No, although the ethics of banning abortions are exactly why I got curious whether there are any countries so collectivist that they're willing to enforce these kinds of rules even after birth and on both parents, not just the mother.
    – M.V.
    Commented Feb 9, 2018 at 15:15
  • 1
    This would violate freedom of religion, since Jehovah's Witnesses consider blood transfusion to violate their religious beliefs.
    – Kevin
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 21:03
  • 1
    Free practicing of religion, in the U.S. is not a blanket license to allow any and all behavior. I think the Aztec religion required child sacrifice.
    – George White
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 22:00
  • 1
    @Kevin: There have certainly been US cases where courts have ordered children to receive medical treatment even though their parents objected on religious grounds. This has not been held to violate the First Amendment's freedom of religion guarantees.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 22:08

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-4

No. You are not required to undergo a medical procedure even if it Is guaranteed to save a life. Although I hear some places force vaccination based on inconclusive evidence from pharmaceutical corporations to potentially, contribute, in sum, to the saving of a few lives. This is stacked with laws that make it illegal to sue the corporation if and when the vaccine causes you an injury (although they generally provide some monetary compensation as a consolation).

But pharmaceutical corporations own politicians and media. I don’t see an equivalent lobby for children who need blood from close relatives to survive. You would need a way for medical corporations to get a huge amount of money from the procedures to spend the billions on propaganda and political lobbying to make it happen.

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    The question was looking for a law anywhere in the world. The fact that one country does not have such a law is not really an answer.
    – George White
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 22:02
  • @georgewhite I am quite sure no place has a law requiring blood donation by parents. But it’s hard to prove a negative. So by your standards there is likely no correct answer.
    – Oliver
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 22:56
  • 2
    Unless an answer goes through all approx. 200 sovereign jurisdictions in the world and explains how each one can’t have such a law. That would be quite the answer.
    – Oliver
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 22:59
  • I agree that, unless someone knows something very obscure, the the only answer is "highly likely no place has such a law".
    – George White
    Commented Aug 14, 2020 at 4:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .