Conclusion of:BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?

Vercillo and Duprey in this issue of the Journal refer to In re Osbourne to highlight the interest in ensuring the security of dependents, but how was the case resolved?  It concerned a severely injured father of two minor children.  the court determined that if he died, relatives would materially and spiritually care  for his children.  So, as in other recent cases, the court found no compelling state interest to justify overriding the patient's choice of treatment; judicial intervention to authorize treatment deeply objectionable  him was unwarranted.  With alternative treatment the patient recovered and continued to care for his family. 

Is it not true that the vast majority of cases physicians have confronted, or likely will, can be managed without blood?  What we studied and know best has to do with medical problems, yet patients are human beings whose individual values and goals cannot be ignored. They know best about their own priorities, their own morals and conscience, which give life meaning for them.   

Respecting the religious consciences of Witness patients may challenge our skills. But as we meet this challenge, we underscore valuable liberties that all of us cherish. As John Stuart Mill aptly wrote:  "No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government . .  . Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual.   Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." 

Next time: HOW DID LIE BEGIN? 

From the Watchtower magazine