Continue with BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?

While Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood for religious reasons, more and more  non-Witness patients are choosing to avoid blood because of risks such as AIDS, non-A non-B hepatitis and immunologic reactions.  We may present to them our views as to whether such risks seem minor compared to the benefits. But as the American Medical Association points out, the patient is "the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the treatment or operation recommended by the doctor or risk living without it.  Such is the natural right of the individual, which the law recognizes."

Related to this, Macklin brought up the risk/benefit issue regarding at Witness "who  risked bleeding to death without a transfusion.  A medical student said:  "His thought processes were intact. What do you do when religious beliefs are against the only source of treatment?  Macklin reasoned: "We may believe very strongly this man is making a mistake.  But Jehovah's Witnesses believe that to be transfused . . . [may] result in eternal damnation.  We are trained to do risk-benefit analysis in medicine but if you weigh eternal damnation against remaining life on earth, the analysis assumes a different angle."

Vercillo and Duprey in this issue of the Journal refer to in re Osborne to highlight the interest in ensuring the security  of dependents, but how was that case involved?  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 authorized treatment deeply objectionable to him was unwarranted.  with alternative treatment the patient recovered and continued to care for his family.

Next time: Conclusion of BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?

From the jw.org publications