High Court allows transfusion for Jehovah's Witness despite husband's objection

by TJ Curioso 7 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • TJ Curioso
    TJ Curioso

    The High Court has ordered that a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses in need of urgent surgical treatment can receive certain blood transfusion products despite objections from her husband on religious grounds.

    The 27-year-old woman was admitted to a Dublin hospital yesterday suffering from acute abdominal pain and later collapsed, the court was told.

    She had a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and had lost a significant amount of blood, which was replaced with recycled blood from the woman using a system known as "cell salvage".

    The court was told she is now sedated and unable to express her wishes and will continue in that state until a certain procedure is carried out to prevent serious infection, but which could involve further bleeding and the need for a transfusion.

    That must be done tomorrow morning, the court heard.

    A dispute had arisen between her husband and the hospital over her wishes, the court was told.

    Eileen Barrington SC, for the hospital, said the woman had told doctors, when first admitted to hospital, that she was refusing a transfusion of whole blood or red blood cells but would accept platelets or plasma.

    Her emotional husband told the court yesterday his wife had signed a document used by Jehovah's Witnesses, known as the Advanced Care Directive, declaring she would never accept platelets or plasma even if her life was in danger.

    He believed, because his wife was in such terrible pain, it was really hard for her to reason but it was one of their core beliefs not to accept primary blood components of red or white blood cells or plasma and platelets, although she would accept "minor fractions" of blood.

    He knew his wife of eight years well and she had filled in three Advanced Care Directives over a number of years stating this, the most recent being August 2012, he said.

    "At a time when she cannot make up her mind, that is what it [the directive] is there for."

    Ms Barrington said the hospital was contending that the wishes expressed by the woman to doctors yesterday evening over-rode the wishes expressed in the directive.

    The hospital wanted an order permitting it make the appropriate transfusion for the procedure referred to because, without that option, doctors had said there was a risk of death or serious lifelong disability.

    As part of her treatment when first admitted to hospital, abdominal "packs" were inserted which put pressure on the blood vessels to prevent bleeding, counsel said.

    Those packs must be removed within 36 hours and there was a risk of further bleeding in this procedure.

    Granting an order allowing the hospital administer non-red blood transfusions, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said it seemed to him, from evidence given to the court by treating doctors, the woman had the capacity the amend the Advanced Care Directive when she told doctors yesterday that she would accept plasma or platelets.

    He granted the hospital the order sought.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1016/blood-transfusion-jehovahs-witness.html
  • besty
    besty

    awesome news - hope she makes a full recovery to the conscious class...

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    Sounds like the hospital is pushing their luck on this one. It is obvious to us that if she refused red cells then she would refuse the other "prime fractions" denied by the WTS....When she comes around they can just say that ,we thought you said red cells only.

    Does the end justify the means if she pulls through? Perhaps......but what about patients rights and having doctors ride roughshod over your wishes?

    The implications of this, for the Irish, are much greater than the blood issue and J W's

  • Found Sheep
    Found Sheep

    This just makes me sad to think the husband is all upset about the cult blood view! He should only be thinking what can be done to make his wife healthy again!

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    Hope she pulls through and that the husband can concentrate on giving her the love and support she will need as she recovers.

    I only hope that I don't hear of any incidents of people using this to illustrate how important it is for Witnesses to be sure of what they will/won't accept, making sure the AMD is up to date etc. etc.

    At the end of the day the lines are drawn by the WTBTS and we Witnesses just follow with no thought - "you can think anything you like about blood just so long as it agrees with our definition".

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Does the end justify the means if she pulls through? Perhaps......but what about patients rights and having doctors ride roughshod over your wishes?

    The implications of this, for the Irish, are much greater than the blood issue and J W's

    I totally agree, but then I'm from the US.

    Even if I do NOT agree with your choices, I will fight for your right to make your own choice.

    Anyone who was ever a JW and signed up for the No Blood Policy knows that she would NOT knowingly agree to plasma or platlets if she refused red blood cells. She would either adhere to the WTS doctrine or totally disregard it.

    JMHO

    Doc

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    Whether you agree with the court action or not - you do have to admit that this highlights very well the idiocy the "some parts of blood are OK, but others are not" policy of the Watchtower.

    Who can keep this stuff straight?

  • Giordano
    Giordano

    Another example of fools who believe in fools.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit