I saw on the television, a report about the lady at who wasn’t given a blood transfusion following the birth of her twins and died. I know she was a Jehovah’s Witness which meant her religion would not allow her to have the transfusion but surely the doctors should have forced her to have it, especially as her twins have now been left without a mother. What do you think?
I have read about this case and, according to news reports, the lady had discussed her refusal to accept a blood transfusion both with her GP and her Consultant. She had been told the consequences of her refusal if complications arose but had signed a form refusing the treatment and her family agreed.
In the , a patient’s autonomy, that is their right to chose what is best for themselves, is paramount. So if an adult refuses treatment on any grounds, including religious grounds, the doctors must respect this.
There are of course exceptions to this rule. For example, a court order may be obtained to treat a child if the treatment is in the child’s best interests and they or their parents have not consented to treatment.
However, when treating a “competent adult”, that is someone who is of sound mind, then their decision to accept or refuse treatment is completely within the patient’s control.
This is not the case abroad. In for example, a similar situation arose after a woman required a blood transfusion following the birth of her child. Here, an emergency court order was obtained to give the mother blood, on the basis that the right of the newborn baby to have a family life overruled the mother’s right to refuse treatment.
It remains that in the however, if the doctors had overruled her decision, they could have been charged with a criminal offence.
