Notizie.it editorial team Topics Covered
The Child's Case and the Court of Cassation's Decision
On , the Court of Cassation issued an order that sparked widespread debate, establishing that parents' religious or ideological beliefs cannot prevail over the interests of their child. This principle emerged in a specific case involving a child with a serious heart defect, who required surgery and a possible blood transfusion. The parents, however, had set conditions regarding the transfusion, requesting that the blood come exclusively from donors who were not vaccinated against Covid-19.
Parents' motivations and the hospital's response
The minor's parents justified their position with religious reasons, claiming that the cell lines used to produce the anti-Covid vaccine came from aborted fetuses. They also expressed concerns about the spike protein present in the vaccine. Faced with this situation, the hospital tried to explain to the parents that it was not possible to guarantee unvaccinated donors. Therefore, it turned to the guardianship judge of Modena to obtain authorization for the surgery and transfusion, believing that the child's health should have priority.
The role of the judge and the final sentence
The judge considered the parents' request unreasonable, appointing the hospital's general director as the minor's guardian to express consent to the intervention. Despite the parents' appeal to the juvenile court of Bologna, which rejected their request, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court rejected the appeal, stating that the request for transfusions from unvaccinated donors represents a choice of religious conscience that cannot be imposed on the minor. The order, signed by the president of the first civil section Maria Acierno, underlined the importance of considering the rights and interests of the child, which must be protected regardless of family beliefs.