. http://www.newsobserver.com/ncwire/news/Story/1108505p-1106534c.html
Jehovah's Witness takes blood fight to state Supreme Court
JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- In a choice between following his patient's wishes to the letter or saving his life, surgeon Glen Strickland chose a lifesaving blood transfusion.
But the patient was a Jehovah's Witness, who believe blood is sacred and not to be shared with others. And Charles Harvey had signed a form saying he did not want any blood products used on him.
The transfusion was approved by his mother because he was incapacitated. But Harvey, a Greensboro, N.C., resident, said it amounted to medical battery and sued Strickland.
The case, which pits a doctor's desire to do everything to save a patient versus a patient's desires before surgery, is expected to go before the state Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.
There are nearly a million Jehovah's Witnesses across the country, and the religion forbids blood transfusions, citing the section of Leviticus in the Bible that reads: "Whatsoever man...eats any manner of blood, I will cut him off from among his people."
The case hinges on whether Harvey's mother, who was listed as an emergency contact for the surgery, had permission to overrule her son's wishes and order the blood transfusion after Strickland told her Harvey would likely die from a heart attack otherwise.
Strickland's attorney said the mother could because Harvey's complications from the voluntary surgery to remove a blood clot from his neck were unforeseen at the time Harvey filled out his order to use no blood products.
But Harvey's lawyer argued she wasn't authorized under state law to make decisions on her son's behalf, especially when he had made his wishes known in writing.
Patients have died in South Carolina before by refusing blood. Doctors at a Rock Hill hospital allowed a Jehovah's Witness to die in 1999 after she refused a transfusion following complications from a stillbirth.
Harvey, 55, didn't find out about the transfusion until several months after he recovered from the clot and a stroke caused by complications from the January 1997 surgery. But he said time didn't lessen the blow.
"I'm just scared. I worry all the time," Harvey testified in his 2000 trial, which ended with a Circuit Court judge ruling in Strickland's favor. "I can't hardly sleep. I don't sleep at all."
During the trial, Harvey's lawyer, Calvin Rouse, showed Strickland a form he filled out from the Jehovah's Witnesses saying he would not deliver blood products to a patient who requested none. He also showed the surgeon the form Harvey signed asking for no blood products.
But Strickland said Harvey's situation had changed since the two discussed the blood issue before the surgery.
"That document says in principle you will not deliver blood," Strickland testified. "To me, that means, that's what I do for everybody. You try not to give blood."
Strickland's lawyer Charles Carpenter Jr. even quote a Jehovah's Witness elder, who said Harvey is forgiven for taking in someone else's blood because he was not conscious to make the decision.
"The doctor saved the patient's life. The patient has not been exposed to any disease and has not contracted any disease," Carpenter said. "The patient's own religion finds him fault-free. The doctor would have been wrong to do anything different from what was done."
-----------------
second article
Blood fight taken to state Supreme Court
JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- When Charles Harvey signed a form saying he didn't want a blood transfusion during surgery in 1997, the Jehovah's Witness felt he was devoutly leaving his life in God's hands.
However, there were complications during the operation. Harvey's surgeon said he needed a blood transfusion to survive. With Harvey unconscious, Dr. Glen Strickland got permission for the procedure from Harvey's mother.
Strickland says the transfusion saved Harvey's life, but Harvey sued, saying the procedure was unnecessary and left him distraught because he had sinned against one of his religion's bedrock foundations.
Strickland "stole from me. He took something from me," said Harvey, who paused to wipe away tears after the South Carolina Supreme Court heard his case against the doctor Tuesday morning. "He took my rights."
A spokesman for a national hospital organization says the case shows why it is important to have a living will and to make sure patients, their doctors and their families talk about all possibilities before surgery.
"The worst time to be communicating about all of these things is in the middle of a crisis," American Hospital Association spokesman Rick Wade said.
There are nearly a million Jehovah's Witnesses across the country, and they cite verses in the Biblical books of Leviticus and Acts of the Apostles that they say forbid blood transfusions. One often-cited Old Testament passage in Leviticus reads: "Whatsoever man... eats any manner of blood, I will cut him off from among his people."
Harvey, who has since moved from Columbia to Greensboro, N.C., received the transfusion at Lexington Medical Center to unblock his carotid artery. He sued Strickland in 1998, claiming Strickland committed "medical battery" on him by ordering the transfusion. He said he had filled out a form saying he did not want a blood transfusion.
At a trial in 2000, a circuit court judge threw out the case after the jury hung with an 11-1 decision in Harvey's favor, his lawyer Calvin Rouse said. Rouse asked the justices to send the case back to the lower court for a new trial.
Harvey contends the form he completed upon admission meant he shouldn't be given blood under any circumstances.
But Strickland's attorney, Charles Carpenter Jr., said the stroke was an unforeseen emergency and the surgeon had to get consent again to treat Harvey further. Since the patient was unconscious, the decision fell to Harvey's mother, who he named an emergency contact.
"Then what do I have to do to make sure you as my doctor do what I want you to do?" Associate Justice E.C. Burnett asked Carpenter.
Carpenter said Harvey should have filled out a living will or power of attorney, because the form he filled out only applied to his wishes for the elective surgery, not the stroke that followed.
Burnett then asked if requiring a living will for all decisions in an operating room would invalidate any decision a patient made when filling out a consent form for surgery.
The justices also asked Carpenter if surgeons should be required to come out of the operating room every time an unforeseen circumstance came up to seek approval for what they do next.
But the high court also blames Rouse for choosing to have the judge rule instead of having him declare a mistrial and starting all over again.
The justices will issue their opinion at a later date.
Patients have died in South Carolina before by refusing blood. Doctors at a Rock Hill hospital allowed a Jehovah's Witness to die in 1999 after she refused a transfusion following complications from a stillbirth.
Harvey said he understands some people will wonder why he just doesn't appreciate the fact he's alive today and drop the suit. But he believes it's for a patient to decide ultimately what's best for him instead of a doctor.
"When I was baptized in 1995, I gave my life to go with God," Harvey said. "From that point on, whatever he has in store for me, that's what it will be."