Abstract

Aim: Newborn screening programs are a critical public health intervention in preventing permanent morbidity and mortality through the early diagnosis of metabolic and genetic diseases. Although heel prick testing is a mandatory screening practice supported by legal regulations in Türkiye, some parents' refusal to consent to this procedure has led to legal and ethical debates. The aim of this study is to systematically examine the Constitutional Court (TCC) individual application decisions regarding heel prick blood collection and to assess how the Court balances parental autonomy with the best interests of the child.
Materials and Methods: In this study, four decisions retrieved by searching for the keyword "heel prick" in the TCC Decisions Database were examined using qualitative document analysis.
Results: The study revealed that the TCC generally found heel prick testing to be proportionate, citing its clear legal basis, legitimate public health purpose, and minimally invasive nature as justification. However, in cases where the medical necessity for repeated heel prick testing was not sufficiently justified, the Court ruled that there had been a violation of rights. The Constitutional Court's assessments are consistent with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality accepted in international human rights law and point to the importance of the processes of information, recording, and medical justification for healthcare professionals.
Conclusion: This study presents important findings that strengthen the legal framework of newborn screening programs in Türkiye, concretize the balance between parental consent and the best interests of the child, and guide clinical practice.

Key words: Heel prick, newborn screening, parental refusal, best interests of the child, medical-legal analysis