Permission has been granted by the High Court for a blood transfusion to be provided to a baby facing a “real risk of death”, despite the mother objecting to the treatment on religious grounds.An urgent application was made by the Health Service Executive (HSE) last month seeking consent to carry out the life-saving treatment despite the mother’s objections.The eight-month-old baby had been admitted to a hospital the day prior, with the court hearing of a risk of “significant deterioration or death” if the blood transfusion was not undertaken.The baby had sickle cell disease and presented with life-threatening anaemia due to acute splenic sequestration, a medical emergency where a large volume of red blood cells gets caught in and accumulate in the spleen.Despite medical staff explaining the position to the mother, a Jehovah’s Witness, she objected to the transfusion largely on religious grounds.The mother told Judge David Barniville it was “not obvious” that her baby was very sick, but appeared to be quite stable. She also felt that, should she be allowed to care for the baby herself, the blood levels would go up.She told the court she was doubtful that her baby was in a crisis situation and felt it could potentially be the flu, believing her baby required rest.The mother also raised concerns over potential complications arising from a transfusion, having heard of adverse reactions from others.However, a consultant paediatric haematologist told the judge adverse risks were “vanishingly rare” and “infinitesimal” in Ireland, saying in her 15 years as a consultant, she had never seen a transfusion-related infection.She said the “very rare” risks must be weighed against the “very serious risk of death” facing the baby.Asked what the threshold was for a transfusion, she said international guidelines dictated that a haemoglobin level of 6g/dl or lower would require a transfusion.She confirmed that on the day of the hearing, the baby’s haemoglobin level was 5.6g/dl, telling the judge the transfusion was required “immediately or almost immediately”.The most common outcome of the acute splenic sequestration the baby was experiencing was death, she said.A consultant general paediatrician working in the hospital said if the transfusion was not carried out, the baby could suffer brain damage or multi-organ failure with “lifelong consequences” on survival. In her view, she said there was “no alternative” to a transfusion.Maria Dillon, a solicitor appointed Guardian ad Litem at the outset of the hearing by the judge, noted it was an “extremely urgent” situation.Although the mother’s religious views should receive the “utmost respect”, Dillon said they should not prevent the baby from receiving “urgent life-saving treatment”.Noting that blood transfusions are “anathema” to members of the Jehovah’s Witness community, the judge said the mother was not in a position to consent and did not agree with the treatment.He accepted that without a transfusion, it was very possible, “if not likely”, the baby would die.The judge granted the HSE’s application, allowing the baby to be provided a transfusion and repeat transfusions if considered medically necessary.He also made an order that the baby remain in the hospital until medically discharged by treating consultants.In the judgment published on Friday, the judge noted that he had since been informed that the blood transfusion had taken place and the baby was “recovering well”.