Who decides on medical procedures for a child: the child’s parents or hospital administrators? From Kit Knightly at off-guardian.com:
A court in New Zealand has awarded temporary custody of a baby to medical professionals, after the parents insisted their child be given only unvaccinated blood transfusions during surgery.
A critically-ill six-month-old baby will be placed under the temporary guardianship of New Zealand’s High Court after his parents refused to allow him to undergo lifesaving heart surgery using blood from people vaccinated against Covid-19 […] The baby’s parents believed there were “spike proteins in the blood of people who have been vaccinated and that these proteins were causing unexpected deaths relating to transfusions,” according to the judgment.
The key detail here is that the parents have not, in any way, refused their child medical care – the usual prerequisite for this kind of court order. They want their son to have the surgery, they are simply setting reasonable terms.
Now, whether or not the parents are correct and spike proteins do pose a threat, they have every right to try and do the best for their child as they see fit.
To any pro “vaccine” people out there who are not OK with this, answer this simple question: What if parents of a vaccinated child had specifically requested vaccinated blood transfusions, and the court had removed the baby and injected it with unvaccinated blood…would that be OK?
I’m guessing not. And the principle is clearly the same.