Tess McClure in Auckland – The Guardian Dec 7, 2022
A New Zealand high court judge has ruled in favour of health authorities who sought guardianship of a baby boy after his parents refused to consent to a transfusion of “vaccinated blood” in a life-saving operation.
The landmark decision, delivered on Thursday, is expected to have wide-ranging ramifications and has become a focus of protests for anti-vaxxers who held demonstrations outside the courtroom.
The six-month-old known as Baby W will not survive without urgent surgery for a congenital heart defect. His parents said they were unwilling to proceed unless they were given a guarantee he would only receive blood from unvaccinated donors.
New Zealand’s health authorities and blood service argued that allowing the parents to refuse vaccinated blood would set a dangerous precedent, in which patients could demand to pick and choose where their blood came from.
The high court decision places the boy in the guardianship of his paediatric heart surgeon and cardiologist “for the purpose of consenting to surgery to address the obstruction and all medical issues related to that surgery, including the administration of blood” said Justice Ian Gault in a summary of the judgment.
That guardianship will last from Wednesday until completion of his surgery and post-operative recovery – likely to be January 2023 at the latest. The parents will retain guardianship in all other matters.
In previous interviews the parents said the baby needed surgery “almost immediately” but that they were “extremely concerned with the blood [the doctors] are going to use”.
Vaccines to prevent severe disease and death from Covid-19 have been found to be extremely safe and effective, with millions of people around the world vaccinated.
The judge noted that New Zealand’s blood service had presented evidence from the past six months of a “significant increase in potential blood recipients asking for blood from unvaccinated donors or asking about directed donation. Similar trends have been noted in other countries.”
The case was filed by the Auckland health service Te Whatu Ora. In a statement last week, interim director Dr Mike Shepherd said: “The decision to make an application to the court is always made with the best interests of the child in mind.”
The jehovah witness religious group use scripture to not have blood from others
while this is good
they are meat eaters
contrary to genesis
There is always blood in the meat even when cooked it is still there The only religious group to make changes as new historical papyri finds come out of palestine is the 7th day adventists who are now vegetarian as Christ was
if he was an essene and it looks like he was they taught vegetarinism and reincarnation as early bibles did
Interestingly Empedocles the early greek scholar said the earliest bible fragments the chaldean say the original sin was not eating an apple which lodged in adams throat e g the adams apple
but the killing and eating of gods animals
“…allowing the parents to refuse vaccinated blood would set a dangerous precedent, in which patients could demand to pick and choose where their blood came from”. Why the hell should patients NOT be able to choose where their blood came from?? Why is that a dangerous thing to do? It is really the most sensible thing to do
What does the court has to gain if unvaccinated people such as myself are available willing to donate untainted blood at a drop of a hat ?
But is all about control and total OBIDIENCE. Just like in China, India, Arabia and other police state countries.
Chances are that those at the courts and the hospital are a people such as the arch vile Harari whose lifestyles do not themselves contribute to producing children because they are homosexuals or lesbos.
But even if they had children they would have exempted themselves just like how they exempted themselves from getting the bioweapon vaccination, along with the 6 million Chinese students. With China being their God.
According to NZ freedom lawyer Liz Gunn: Whilst this case was being deliberated, the NZ govmt sneakily voted through the ok to jab babies 6 months on up; therefore, cuz baby Will, now 4 months, who was born 2 months premature, the medical cartel claim that Will is technically 6 months old, not 4, so in their sick minds, is eligible for jabbing, so there’s no problem! It’s so eeeeeeevil!
A “dangerous precedent” is a danger only to what the precedent opposes…
So, are we to believe that what-we-oppose cannot precede growing opposition?
Sometimes a door-opened is a door that cannot be closed…
To whatever extent donating blood of the vaccinated has Venn-diagram overlap with the vaccination itself, then donating blood is a vaccine, and the recipient is being vaccinated with it.
Aukland has become the outland of Auk-world (awkward for humanity).
But woe to them that are with child and give suck in those days….
Think we are seeing another layer to that prophecy.
Bad enough tainted breast milk/black eyes if mother/father has had the sauce. Worse if a spontaneous abortion occurs thanks to the sauce.
But here is something else… The child is taken from the parents for not toeing their line. I been through this and its absolutely fucking hell.
As adults, we can chose not to have surgery and die of our own accord rather than be sauced and lose our soul. Its something I chose when faced with a medical emergency I decided not to phone the hearse, sorry ambulance and prepared to meet my Maker. Not for the faint of heart.
But when its your child or loved one, granted its way different. Though this is taking the right to let parents decide whether they want nature to tale its course, or if they do want medical intervention, that they have no say in it whatsoever or the child is removed.
They are not about saving lives but getting that sauce into every living thing to take its soul and give it straight to their god. And its a Brucey bonus if they can put a stop to anyone else with freethinking whilst they’re at it.
As with all these news stories, weigh it up, is this another drama to shine a spotlight on those nasty no saucers?
If not, then these parents need to brace themselves for worse case scenario, get all the supplements for metal chelation and GO protocols for them and the poor bairn.
That is if the mite doesnt succumb to the sauce.
Feels good to be cared for by our medical kidnappers dunnit?
I presume the parents are not jabbed?
So half a litre from mum and half a litre from dad mixed together is not going to get this baby boy out of his jam?
It’s weird that some other person’s blood a stranger’s blood would be a better match?
Doesn’t seem right somehow…
judges + authorities know only
the way to kill babies !
Sad story….
Unfortunately…people will lie re their Vaxx status
……and/or I think it is near impossible to find “pure blood”…as the vaxxed will inevitably shed etc . onto unvaxxed…… and the unvaxxed can’t escape this contamination process.
This is incomplete! Typical media spin!
What they aren’t telling is that the parents had multiple unvaxxed people on standby to provide
blood but NZ Blood Service REFUSED. They used to allow direct donor blood in certain cases but they have changed their policy!
Anyone wanting to know more look up on Bitchute – Sue Grey (the lawyer acting on behalf of the parents ) and bring up “latest”.
Folks,,, the idea of depopulation is people die. The virus is fake,,, used only to scare people into getting the shots. It’s also being used as cover. Just about everyone now ‘believes’ the virus is real. This belief is what will get the killers off the hook.
You are vaccinated as soon as you take blood from someone who has taken the experimental jab. We are starting to see the very disturbing number of still births with vaccinated women. In 2017 the average stillbirth was 1 in 200. Look at the current rates of stillbirth!!