TTB files complaint over 'heel prick test' ruling

The Turkish Medical Association (TTB) and regional medical chambers have filed an appeal and submitted a complaint against the judge who signed the ruling after the Kars Family Court decided against taking a heel prick blood sample from a newborn baby.

Don't leave your news choices to an algorithm - decide for yourself what you read. Add 12punto to your preferred sources!

TTB files complaint over 'heel prick test' ruling

The ruling issued by the Kars Family Court on August 20, 2024, against taking a heel prick blood sample from a newborn baby has sparked reactions.

The Turkish Medical Association (TTB) and the Ağrı-Kars-Ardahan-Iğdır Medical Chamber have filed an appeal against the court decision, alongside a request to intervene as a secondary party before the Kars Provincial Health Directorate.

Furthermore, they have filed a complaint with the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) against the judge who signed the ruling.

In the application texts prepared by the TTB, it was emphasized that newborn screening programs are implemented to protect public health and ensure the early diagnosis of diseases.

It was stated that screening programs play a significant role in reducing morbidity and mortality rates. It was noted that in developing countries, including Turkey, the number of preventable diseases has decreased with the improvement of healthcare services.

The application texts also included the ethical views of the Turkish Bioethics Association regarding the newborn screening program. It was stated that the programs are important for protecting child health and provide scientific benefits. Additionally, it was expressed that the benefit provided by screening programs is far more significant than potential risks.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The decision that caused reactions was made after a family in Kars refused to have a heel prick blood sample taken from their newborn baby.

The Kars Provincial Health Directorate had applied to the court based on Article 7 of the Child Protection Law, titled "Taking Protective and Supportive Measures." However, the Kars Family Court rejected the Provincial Health Directorate's application, citing claims of alternative medicine.

The TTB and regional medical chambers stated that the court's decision could negatively affect not only the health of the child in question but also the health of all children and the public, and they demanded that the decision be re-evaluated.

News Source: 12punto