JUDGMENT

Mohd Hishamudin Yunus J:

[1] The inter parte summons in chambers at encl. 11 is an application by the defendants to set aside an ex parte injunction order obtained by the plaintiff on 21 October 2004.

[2] The ex parte injunction order applied for by the plaintiff and granted by this court is that the defendants are restrained from obstructing or causing obstruction, in any possible way, to the plaintiff or its officers or servants from performing their duties as doctors in treating the defendants' baby in a safe manner especially the administering of blood transfusion to the baby whenever deemed necessary.

[3] The defendants, by reason of their religious beliefs as Jehovah Witnesses, opposed the administering of blood transfusion to their baby citing, among others, their constitutional right to practise their religion as guaranteed by arts. 3 and 11 of the Federal Constitution .

[4] I have allowed the defendants' application to set aside the ex parte order with costs. I have also ordered that damages, if any suffered, be assessed by the registrar.

[5] My grounds are as follows.

[6] The first and second defendants were husband and wife. They were also followers of a sect of Christianity known as Jehovah's Witnesses. On 4 October 2004, the second defendant was admitted as a patient to the plaintiff's hospital, the University of Malaya Medical Center ('the Hospital'). The second defendant was pregnant and suffering from complications associated with a heart condition known as Eisenmenger Syndrome. This medical condition placed the second defendant's health at serious risk during her pregnancy. At the time of her admission as a patient, the second defendant was about 25 weeks pregnant.

[7] As a result of vomiting blood on 7 October 2004, the second defendant was transferred to the Coronary Care Unit of the Hospital. Several members of the medical team assigned to care for the second defendant met with her and her husband (the first defendant) to discuss the possibility of her undergoing a caesarean section on 11 October 2004. The second defendant refused to consent to that operation as scheduled, because she wanted to maximize the foetus' chance to live. She was prepared to extend the term of her pregnancy for as long as she could personally manage. The second defendant's decision, which had the full support of the first defendant, was motivated by a desire to protect the sanctity of the feotus' life which is consistent with the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who view the sanctity of life as a fundamental religious principle. The caesarean operation scheduled for 11 October 2004 was therefore cancelled.

[8] On 8 October 2004, the second defendant provided a written directive to the plaintiff setting forth, amongst other matters, her instructions that no blood transfusions (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma) be given to her under any circumstances, even if the doctors deem such measure necessary to preserve her life or health. The directive also stated her willingness to consent to the use of non-blood volume expanders.

[9] Shortly thereafter, a discussion took place between the defendants and the members of the plaintiff's medical team which included:

(a) Professor YK Chan (anaesthetist);

(b) Professor PC Tan (obstetrician);

(c) Dr. Nik Asmah; and

(d) Professor Boey (paediatrician).

[10] At that meeting, the first defendant raised the idea that erythropoietin (rHuEPO), a synthetic hormone that stimulates erythropoiesis, could be administered to the baby as part of non-blood medical management strategy. Further discussions were held between the members of the plaintiff's medical team and representatives of the Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Liaison Committee (JWHLC) pertaining to the available alternatives to the use of blood.

[11] On 14 October 2004, a further meeting took place between the first defendant, the members of the plaintiff's paediatric team and JWHLC's representatives. At that meeting, Profe