Continue with: BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?

While physicians may voice concerns about ethics or liability, courts have stressed the supremacy of patient choice.  The New York Court of Appeals stated that "the patient's right to determine the course of his own treatment [is] paramount . . . [A] doctor cannot be held to have violated his legal or professional responsibilities when he honors the right of the competent adult patient to decline medical treatment."  That court has also observed that "the ethical integrity of the medical profession, while important, cannot outweigh the fundamental individual rights here asserted. It is the needs and desires of the individual, not the requirements  of the institution, that are paramount."  

When a Witness refuses blood, physicians may feel pangs of conscience at the prospect of doing what seems to be less than the maximum.  What the Witness is asking conscientious doctors  to do, though, is to provide the best alternative care possible under the circumstances.  We often must alter our therapy to accommodate circumstances, such as hypertension, severe allergy to antibiotics, or the unavailability of certain costly equipment.  With the  Witness patient, physicians are asked to manage the medical or surgical problem in harmony with the patient's choice and conscience, his moral/religious decision to abstain from blood.  

Numerous reports of major surgery on Witness patients show  that many physicians can, in good conscience and with success, accommodate the request not to employ blood.  For example, in 1981, Cooley reviewed 1,026 cardiovascular operations, 22% to minors.  He determined "that the risk of surgery in patient's of the Jehovah's Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others."  Kambouris reported on major operations on Witnesses, some of whom had been "denied surgically needed surgical treatment because of their refusal to accept blood."  He said:  "All patients received pre-treatment  assurances that their religious beliefs would be respected, regardless of the circumstances in the operating room.  There were no untoward effects of this policy." 

Next time: Continue with: BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?

From the Watchtower magazine