Against all reputable expert understanding, the parents and their lawyer believe the blood from those who have received the Pfizer Covid vaccine is "tainted".
The parents agree with doctors that their child needs to undergo open-heart surgery. But they disagree with using blood from the New Zealand Blood Service.
Their lawyer, Sue Grey, says about 20 suitable unvaccinated donors offered to give blood. Since the publicity about the case, many more have offered support.
Medical staff and the family have been unable to come to agreement, and the focus is now on a hearing today in the High Court at Auckland.
Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand is seeking temporary guardianship of the child so the surgeons can operate as they would normally.
Somehow, there remains a core of New Zealanders, albeit many of them intelligent in their own ways, who believe the unbelievable. They are willing to be convinced by pseudo-science and the support of others in their like-minded echo chambers.
Ms Grey said the mother had "done a huge amount of research". However well-meaning and genuine the efforts, hearing the phrase "doing their own research" always sets alarm bells clanging.
Somehow, these people know better than virtually all the specialists in all the fields related to vaccines, blood and public health.
To most New Zealanders this is bewildering. In the case of the child, it is sad. The operation would have already taken place several weeks ago were it not for the impasse between the medical specialists and the family.
Somehow, the parents believe in the surgeons and other medical staff who will undertake the operation. But they do not accept their views on blood safety, nor the knowledge of their medical and scientific colleagues. The family is also willing for the community to bear the costs of the procedure — as it should — but then insists on placing extra burdens and, as it happens, extra risks.
Blood that has not gone through the normal anonymous Blood Service screenings and processes could be less safe for the child. Further, the same antibodies are likely to be present in the privately donated blood because contracting Covid produces a similar response to being vaccinated.
Te Whatu Ora could argue not only is private blood less safe, but also impractical to use. It will be fearful of the precedent whereby others in the anti-vax camp also insist on "unjabbed" blood.
It would be unrealistic to set up some sort of totally unnecessary double blood stream.
In emergencies, the Care of Children Act already allows blood transfusions without parental consent. What is at issue here is planned operations.
Precedents have been established to override the wishes of Jehovah’s Witness parents if they decline blood transfusions. This instance is different because the parents support the procedure itself.
The Blood Service has had a "Directed Donations Policy". But its use was extremely limited.
Ms Grey has said the parents are "realistic" that if blood plasma is also needed this could be from vaccinated donors. That is because the plasma is sent to Australia for processing, and there would not be time for an alternative source.
Te Whatu Ora’s lawyer, Paul White, said the court application was ultimately based on the best interests of the child and what was viewed as medically safe.
It will now be up to the court to give its interpretation of what is, indeed, in the best interests of the child.
Of course, that will not alter those erroneous and deluded opinions about "jabbed" blood.
