As I understand it, Jehovas Witnesses quite often believe that it is wrong to receive blood from another person. This means that if they are sick or are involved in an accident, they refuse to have a blood transfusion.
If they are not concious, and the hospital gives them a blood transfusion (knowing their religion), would they have legal grounds to sue?
Is it morally right for a doctor to give them a blood transfusion, knowing that they would certainly refuse it if they were concious?
If they were unconscious, and had not expressed a desire to not have a transfusion and did not have anyone around to express that desire for them, then I can’t imagine how the doc could be held liable.
If the person in the above situation appeared to be a Jehovah’s Witness–say, she had a Watchtower t-shirt on–I’d do everything I could to get consent from someone before giving a transfusion, but if it got to the point where she really needed it, I’d go ahead and do it in the absence of a clear indication otherwise.
Some of the more hard-core JW’s have cards in their purses or some other indication on their person that they do not desire a blood transfusion and do not consent to one. The organization is very good at educating people on how to legally decline care like this.
To answer your question–yes, they could sue, but they probably wouldn’t win as long as the doc followed established standards of care. I do not think it is morally right to give a transfusion if you know they would refuse it, but in the absence of a very clear indication of that, you should go ahead and transfuse.
Dr. J
My understanding of the legalities and ethics (in the state of Texas): Blood transfusions can only be given with the informed consent of the patient or next of kin. In a true emergency, if there has been no previous direction from the patient, the patient is unconscious, and there is no next of kin available to make the decision, the treating physician is obligated to do whatever is reasonable and necessary to save that person’s life, which does not include guessing what someone’s personal or religious preferences may be in the matter of treatment.
IMHO, if the patient has discussed and expressed preferences and needs with the physician or hospital employees prior to the hypothetical unconscious emergency, then they are morally obligated to note it on the medical record and refrain from giving that treatment. But healthcare professionals should not be held responsible for “knowing” what someone would want based on their demographics.
Certainly, anyone with specific preferences, needs, and medical conditions should wear some sort of “medical alert” bracelet or necklace, or have this information in their wallet, to help health care professionals in making those decisions. And discuss it with their primary care physician. And discuss it with their next of kin.
It’s amazing how rarely those discussions actually take place. More than half the time I ask a patient for consent to the use of blood or blood products, prior to a planned invasive procedure, they will need to take several minutes to hem and haw over it, ask questions about it, and discuss it with their families. Don’t get me wrong, they absolutely should have all their questions answered and be completely comfortable with it before signing consent, but I’m amazed that the discussion and questions take place 30 minutes prior to the start of a procedure that was planned for several days in advance.
True, this belief does not extend to cases where the recipient is unconscious:
Thus this is probably a moot point.
The Witnesses I know each carry a card in their wallet that says they are JW and therefore do not wish to receive blood. I imagine a person’s wallet is checked upon arrival at the hospital, so the doctors would know their wishes.
I have a no blood card- If they did not find it and I was transfused while i was knocked out I would not complain- but If I was restrained and given one without consent I would be very angry- as an adult I doubt this would happen- but when I was a child I had to fight tooth and nail with a nurse til my mom got one the scene.
i know a surgeon in northern ireland who carried out a heart surgery bypass on a JW…
the surgery only went ahead after the doc signed a form stating no blood would be transfused.
the surgery had to be postponed for 6 months first so they could get enough of the guy’s own blood to proceed safely.
risky business.
sorry, “heart bypass surgery”
d’oh
No, this is not a moot point. Of COURSE the belief extends to when they are unconscious. Whether they are capable of thinking that thought at the moment they are being transfused is irrelevant. What matters in the knowledge of the medical personnel providing treatment. They are obliged to follow the patients wishes, IF THEY KNOW THEM, even if that may ultimately mean the patient’s death.
Our hospital has a specific program for JWs called “bloodless medicine”, which is a misnomer. Basically, it amounts to banking one’s own blood for needed surgery. It’s pretty successful, which makes me wonder about the actual commitment level of people to this particular belief. Frankly, it seems picking nits to distinguish between getting your own blood or someone else’s. But religious beliefs of all stripes seem pretty nutty to me, so what do I know?
This brings up a question, though. They are perfectly ok with banking their own blood for their own needs, but what if there’s a blood shortage? How would they react if the hospital took their blood and used it for someone else? I will inquire about this with the woman who runs the program.
I’ve heard of these programs. Actually, anyone can bank his or her own blood for a planned surgery, I believe. Not a bad idea, if anyone has caught the news regarding the Red Cross’s failure to track and safeguard their blood supply. But most people (non-JW) don’t even give it a thought until the day of procedure, which is far too late.
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my wording, but I think it’s obvious from the quotation that I meant that no sin occurred if the patient was unable to withhold consent due to unconsciousness.
Cite? I’ve always heard that the Watchtower Society objected to even this practice. The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood confirms this doctrine.
Psychonaut
I work at a hospital where we do this because many Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing to do this. Perhaps not all, I don’t know.
But looking at a description of the program, it looks like I misspoke. Predonation is not even mentioned in the documentation, though I know it is encouraged. Most of the program is related to reducing blood loss and/or returning to the patient while still right on the table.
And looking at your site of what is and is not acceptable, I’m even more confused. Why some “…IF their conscience allows”? Why are they allowed to listen to their conscience for some procedures and not others?
Also note on the Meriter page, we DO NOT guarantee to follow the religious dictates of parents as it relates to the medical treatment of minors. Good for us!
Heh, like they will know the difference between their blood and someone else of the same blood type when they get it back.
If you move to another city do they ship your blood supply along too?
This just sounds like a logistical nightmare best solved by going. "Drach? Yup got a couple pints of his right here. Slapping a “This is Drach’s blood” sticker on it at the time of shipping to the hospital.
Originally posted by drachillix
That’s oversimplifying the matter. It has been suggested that blood is as individual as the person; there are not “four blood types”–A, B, AB, and O.
Text originally posted by Psychonaut
Personally, I am suspicious of this quote…But that’s neither here nor there. In any case, this sounds a lot like I wouldn’t care if someone robbed my house while I was out of town…:mad:
JW’s have their own website. I pulled this from it:
The site is copyrighted, so I don’t want to get The Dope in any bind by quoting too much from it. Here is the link.
Seems to answer the OP fairly well. Provided the person is actually carrying the card.
The site has other links about blood. Interesting stuff.
Amen, NoClueBoy. 
It seems that when a person refuses a blood transfusion, that patient has more to lose than anyone else. (I refuse to take the cynical position about the physician, hospital, or whatever not being paid as an overriding priority.) :rolleyes: Naturally, the issue of whether a transfusion is necessary, and whether the patient would die without it, is ctritical here…