Jehovah's Witness forced to have life-saving transfusion

[milmor_1]

Here is one for discussion, with regards to human rights abuse, what is the consensus of opinion? Where the courts right to intervene?

Jehovah's Witness forced to have life-saving transfusion

Friday September 22nd 2006

THE High Court ruled yesterday that doctors in a Dublin maternity hospital can force a seriously-ill Jehovah's Witness to have a blood transfusion despite her refusal on personal and religious grounds.

In a landmark but controversial ruling, the Master of the Coombe Maternity Hospital, Chris Fitzpatrick, was told that his staff could restrain the mother if she physically attempted to stop doctors administering the life-saving blood transfusion and clotting agent.

Yesterday morning, 'Ms K', a 23-year old woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

But she subsequently suffered a massive haemorrhage, losing up to 80pc of her blood. The woman, a Jehovah's Witness refused a blood transfusion, forcing doctors to make an emergency application to the High Court.

Justice Henry Abbott was told that she would die last night unless the procedure was authorised by the court.

Emergency

The transfusion was believed to have gone ahead overnight.

The court was told that the emergency application was complicated by the fact that Ms K, who only speaks French, was fully "compos mentis" and had consciously made a decision refusing medical intervention. Judge Abbott accepted that if she were brought to court on a stretcher, she would oppose the application.

However, he said he would always take the side of life rather than death.

Judge Abbott said there was a risk to the life of the mother and an imminent threat to the genuine welfare of the child and he felt the court could and should intervene in such circumstances.

"The interests of that child is paramount in this situation," he said.

If Ms K died in the hospital as a result of the hospital authorities standing back and doing nothing the child would also have a potential legal action against the hospital, he said.

The Irish courts have previously made similar orders in respect of children whose parents have refused blood transfusions on their behalf, but this is the first time the High Court has made such an order against an adult who is refusing treatment.

The ruling appears to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision in the 1996 right-to-die case. The case, which allowed a woman in a permanent vegetative state to die, also ruled that an adult of sound mind can refuse life-saving treatment even if their reasons for doing so are irrational or non-existent.

The Ward of Court ruling upheld the right to patient autonomy and even went so far to say that an adult can refuse treatment even if there is a risk of serious harm or death. That principle has now apparently been usurped by yesterday's hearing.

Lawyers acting for the Coombe Hospital had warned that if the court did not intervene the baby boy would be left with no person in this country to look after him.

Gerard Hogan, SC, told the court: "I would respectfully say that, faced with the difficulties in which we are in this matter, there is a real risk that unless the court now does intervene the patient will slip into an irreversible coma and the baby will be left with no person in this country, as far as is known, to look after its welfare."

But the Jehovah Witness community last night cast doubt on that assertion and said it would be extremely alarmed if the court made its decision based on inaccurate information.

"On the face of it, this ruling doesn't appear consistent with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence," said Simon Mills, a barrister and expert on medical ethics. "But it depends on how vital you consider the rights of the child and that of the mother. In Irish law, when rights collide, something has to give," he said.

The decision has outraged Ireland's Jehovah Witness community, who said the ruling by the High Court was "akin to rape". The Dublin branch of the community held an emergency meeting last night to discuss the ruling.

"To force a blood transfusion on an adult who is flatly refusing treatment is akin to rape," said Brendan Farrell of the Dublin hospital liaison committee.

"As far as we were concerned, the law in relation to adults was firmly established in Ireland and elsewhere. It smacks of medical paternalism. Does this ruling mean that every adult, and not just Jehovah Witnesses, will have this threat of doctor knows best hanging over their heads if they refuse treatment?

Devastating

"If she wakes up and discovers that she has had a blood transfusion against her will, it will have a devastating impact on her spiritual welfare," said Mr Farrell.

The ruling could have wide-ranging implications for critically-ill patients refusing life-saving treatment and may not be just confined to the issue of religious objections to blood transfusions and other medical treatments.

Living wills, do-not-resucitate orders and the right to pursue alternative treatments may also be affected.

The Association of Irish Humanists branded the ruling a dangerous precedent.

"It is incredible that the decision of a mature adult can be overruled in this way, said its vice-chairman, Dick Spicer. "They are treating her like a child, individual choice has been extinguished."

Jehovah's Witness forced to have life-saving transfusion - Irish Independent

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by milmor_1

Here is one for discussion, with regards to human rights abuse, what is the consensus of opinion? Where the courts right to intervene?

I don't think they were right. If she had still been pregnant and the life of the child was at stake, then they should have forced the transfusion.

They can't force the parents to have medical procedures because of the children. If they could, then they should be forcing drug and alcohol addicted parents into treatment.

"As far as we were concerned, the law in relation to adults was firmly established in Ireland and elsewhere. It smacks of medical paternalism. Does this ruling mean that every adult, and not just Jehovah Witnesses, will have this threat of doctor knows best hanging over their heads if they refuse treatment?

< snip >

The ruling could have wide-ranging implications for critically-ill patients refusing life-saving treatment and may not be just confined to the issue of religious objections to blood transfusions and other medical treatments.

Living wills, do-not-resucitate orders and the right to pursue alternative treatments may also be affected.

The Association of Irish Humanists branded the ruling a dangerous precedent.

"It is incredible that the decision of a mature adult can be overruled in this way, said its vice-chairman, Dick Spicer. "They are treating her like a child, individual choice has been extinguished."

This does set a bad precedent for Nanny-ism at its worst, the "we know better than you" set.

[Betty Boop]

Working in a facility that caters to the needs and religious tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses, there would have been bloodless medicine interventions here in states. Is American medicine truly that superior to British?

Would the same court have ordered a pig heart valve replacement if open heart surgery were emergently necessary and no artificial mechanical valves were available if the new mom had been a Jewish or Muslim patient?

I'm glad that I am in the United States where a person's religious views are respected and upheld - even when it means the patient chooses death over a violation of their religious principals. Years ago I worked with the sweetest woman in a hospital. She needed a hysterectomy and bled out as a complication. Because she was Jehovah's Witness and took the admonition of scripture that says not to drink blood seriously, she refused any blood or blood products. Did I weep at the loss of a friend/coworker? Definitely. But, I was happy that in her passing she knew she had lived faithful to her religious beliefs and no one had compromised them.

What's dangerous about setting aside another's set of religious beliefs and personally justifying it, I think, is that it allows others to determine what our own religious beliefs and practices should be. Is that much different that what is so scary for non-Muslims around the world today as the religious fanaticism that grows as an outshoot of Islam when that fanaticism becomes the political power?

Some very interesting issues to consider in this paternalistic approach to medicine - or any other walk of life.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Betty Boop

What's dangerous about setting aside another's set of religious beliefs and personally justifying it, I think, is that it allows others to determine what our own religious beliefs and practices should be.

Bears repeating!!!

[milmor_1]

katie and Betty you are both quite right in your statements, Ireland has been a strange case of medical intervention over the years.

In tyhe 1970's women died in hospital becasue doctors had to wait for permission from the pope for them to remove the womans womb.

Most of the hospitals at that time were administered by the Catholic Church.

[Caldric]

I think it is a harsh violation of personal freedom and rights. Actually I think it was authortarian in nature and totally destroys the idea or civil rights for individuals. I can't help to think that the court was biased in its religious beliefs.