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.

  • If you use a certain, controversial definition of "child" and a broad definition of donating blood, does banning abortion count here? – You're bad and should feel bad Feb 8 '18 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. Feb 9 '18 at 15:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.