2007-09-05 06:25:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This question seems to ask whether a healthcare professional who is a Jehovah's Witness can administer a blood transfusion to a non-Witness patient. Each healthcare professional among Jehovah's Witnesses must decide this for himself, being careful not to violate his conscience. The article mentioned in this question notes that a medical professional among Jehovah's Witnesses could conscientiously implement any treatment he was instructed to implement.
There are no legal implications if a physician uses one entirely valid medical strategy over another, assuming he (and his insurance company's lawyer) can provide evidence that there was reasonable expectation that the outcome would be comparable or better. Please be assured that there is literally no circumstance in which the infusion of whole blood is superior to modern techniques.
Anti-Witness critics and pro-blood activists conveniently ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the bible to comment upon minor blood fractions (those derived from plasma, platelets, or red/white cells). It seems remarkable to suggest that one or more of these targeted treatments would be less preferable than the kind of scattershot "see what sticks" methodology represented by old-fashioned blood transfusion.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm
Incidentally, this questioner has asked this same question repeatedly for many months:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905103625AAvtnWC
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905102505AA20vYB
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070406072132AABC11t
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070405025345AA22CCt
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070405025049AAo0Gzw
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070402035725AAEZdCA
2007-09-05 06:41:59 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Regarding what?
The state has been known to order transfusion for a child if deemed medically necessary, but adults are not compelled to accept blood.
I recall one case in which a woman was hit by a car and badly injured. She refused transfusion and she died. The driver at fault in the crash argued that she caused her own death by refusing blood, while the other side argued that he was the one who injured her, or else she wouldn't have bled.
In a hospital, there are always plenty of doctors; if one can't administer transfusion, somebody else can. Also, there are blood substitutes that often work well enough, and don't carry any risk of infection either, which a JW physician can use, so the question may not even come up that often.
2007-09-05 13:38:48 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you talking about physicans who operate on Jehovah's Witnesses or a physican who IS one? Anyways.... there are no legal ramifications. Every witness signs a release form absolving the hospital and all medical staff of any consequences suffered as a direct result of their refusal to accept a transfusion. You might want to ask the next Witness you come across for a copy of a brief brochure entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses & the Questionof Blood" or visit www.watchtower.org.
As far the legal issues involved because the doctor does not perform it... It is every patient's right to accept or refuse whatever treatment they choose so the doctor is in the clear.
An example: Is a doctor legally liable if a cancer patient chooses to discontinue chemotherapy and just die in peace?
Now if you're talking about a Witness doctor who is treating a non witness and refuses to prescribe (if that's what they call it) a transfusion the patient can just find another doctor who will.
2007-09-05 13:30:47 · answer #3 · answered by Q&A Queen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would think not many if any. Many doctors have their own opinions about procedures, and in varying cases refuse to do certain treatments. As long as they make sure the patient knows they have a right to a second opinion, and as long as the patient knows the doctors personal feelings are coming in to play, it is then the patient's responsibility.
Consider some doctors will not do abortions. This simply means the patient must choose between having it done by someone else or not at all.
2007-09-06 21:05:31 · answer #4 · answered by Ish Var Lan Salinger 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the UK the legal position is that any adult patient (i.e. 18 years old or over) who has the necessary mental capacity to do so is entitled to refuse treatment, even if it is likely that refusal will result in the patient’s death.
However, with regard to a minor, a principle that has been expressed is that It is not the right of the parents to decide whether or not a child receives a particular treatment where the issue is life-threatening. With specific regard to JW's - they may make martyrs of themselves, but they cannot make martyrs of their children.
2007-09-05 13:46:38 · answer #5 · answered by cheir 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only legal implications I can see would be if they do and their patients did not consent to it (at which point they can be sued).
If a physician does not offer a treatment due to his religious background, he MIGHT be suable if he does not fully explain that the treatment is otherwise available (from someone else other than him).
Similar to a physician refusing to prescribe birth control, he must provide direction to someone who will.
2007-09-05 13:31:02 · answer #6 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Auchtung_Heiss..once again tells partial truth...It is only recently that you can have Parts of whole blood....NO other Christians got this info from God.
When I was a Witness..No blood parts were allowed...No organ transplants either, for that matter..God Is quiet with his amendments. How many un-necessary deaths due to that faulty requirement.....
How would you feel, if after allowing your child to die with an organ ready for transplantation, being faithful to your religion, only to be told the very next day that they had it wrong, and to Go ahead with the transplant!
2007-09-05 21:24:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
you can't force someone to take blood, its against the law of jehovah, blood is sacred. even a court order won't hold up. its also against the consitution, the freedom to worship and believe whatever is everyones god givin right. even if it meant life or death for the person, they choose to obey the laws of god rather than the laws of men.
2007-09-05 13:36:23 · answer #8 · answered by shane o 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that one must obtain a court order to go against their belief. You would need to consult an attorney on this one.
2007-09-05 13:29:29 · answer #9 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
jws have enough education to become physicians? since when? they must've been adult converts.. although how a man of science could convert to a JW, i'll never understand, either.
yes, there is a lot of litigation going on these days with health care specialists not providing care that's legally allowed. Pharmacists not offering birth control or day after pill, that sort of thing.
2007-09-05 13:33:13 · answer #10 · answered by PediC 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋