Court orders blood transfusion for Jehovah's Witness against her will

yaledo

A very sensible decision from the High Court yesterday ordered the Coombe Hostpital to give a blood transfusion to a woman who badly needed it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The woman didn't want a blood transfusion, because it is against the rules of her religion - Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Jehovah's Witnesses reckon that blood is God's property, and that we shouldn't mess with it. In fact, they explicity say that if you accept a blood transfusion, even when in dire need of it, you can be excommunicated, and your chances of getting to heaven are down the drain.
The judge considered the fact that the woman had just given birth to a healthy baby, and said it was better to err on the side of saving life now, and have the ethical debate later.

Do people have a legal right to refuse treatment on religious grounds even though they are harming themselves through inaction?

Do they have a legal right to harm themselves on religious grounds through direct action?

Who should the woman sue, now that she is damned for all eternity?

Does Irish law recognise Jehovahs Witnesses as a legitmate religion? What if I fall on a railway line, paralysing myself in the process, and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism tells me I shoud refuse to let someone move me out of the path of the oncoming freight train?

seamus

I do believe the ruling was based on providing for the child, and was made with the child's best interests in mind.

Personally, if someone wishes to believe something which will end up with them dead, then that's their choice so long as it's not to the detriment of another person, which in this case it clearly would have been.

Afaik, technically in this country suicide or attempted suicide is against the law (throwback from Catholicism). However you could make the case that suicide involves the deliberate or planned killing of onesself. Dying because you lost blood and refused to have a transfusion could be considered more of an incidental death than a suicidal one.

maidhc

I think it is an awful ruling!

Every other jursidiction I know of in the western world allows people a right to refuse medical treatment, even if the result is their death. I don't see why Ireland should be any different. Indeed there was a case in the UK where a person was convicted of murder when they assaulted a Jehova who subsequently refused a blood transfusion which would have saved his life.

As far as I am aware Jehova Witnesses are entitled to be considered a legitimate religion as much as Catholicism or Islam. Tbh any religion I know of has some odd beliefs (e.g. contraception / women priests...), and I don't see why the religion of the Jehova's deserves any less respect.

The baby's life was not in danger, nor was there any danger of it living a less fulfilled life. It would have lost a parent a very young age, but I know from my own personal experience that is something which will just get dealt with.

dats_right

seamus wrote:

Afaik, technically in this country suicide or attempted suicide is against the law (throwback from Catholicism). However you could make the case that suicide involves the deliberate or planned killing of onesself. Dying because you lost blood and refused to have a transfusion could be considered more of an incidental death than a suicidal one.

Seamus, I am afraid that you are wrong. Suicide hasn't been a crime for 13 years in this jursidiction. As you will see by this very simplistic statutory provision:
CRIMINAL LAW (SUICIDE) ACT, 1993
2.—(1) Suicide shall cease to be a crime.

I would be surprised if the woman doesn't bring proceedings against the state seeking aggrevated damages for breach of her constitutional rights (both freedom of religion and personal rights are possible grounds) and the torts of battery and trespass to the person. Indeed, I sincerely hope that she pursues such an action.

Although, I haven't had the opportunity to read the judgement I am very interested in the judicial reasoning of this case. My first instinct is that this was decided wrongly. As I think it fundamental that somebody who is of sound mind and over 18 years of age be allowed to refuse medical treatment (having been fully advised of the consequences of such refusal), why should the state or anybody else for that matter have a right to override the persons lawful and free decision. I think that this in the Nanny State gone mad!

To those who retort by saying, well what about the baby? I would say, that while it is far from ideal that this child would be denied the love and affection of its mother, nonetheless the mother's right to opt to refuse medical treatment and the certain consequences of such a refusal supersede the rights of the child to have a mother. Harsh as this may be on the child, I think that it is fundamental to our democracy that people be allowed freely exercise their religous and moral beliefs provided that does not contravene the laws of the state. As in this case they clearly didn't!

hullaballoo

The state has a constitutional obligation to protect children, so I think this is more than likely to be the rationale behind the decision. Also, religion is becoming less and less important in court cases these days because of the idea that what you may or may not believe is not necessarily good for you in this world (whatever about the next), and this world is what we are concerned with as lawyers.

maidhc

hullaballoo wrote:

The state has a constitutional obligation to protect children, so I think this is more than likely to be the rationale behind the decision.

The child wasn't going to be harmed. He would be less a mother, but at the end of the day if it turns out his mother disowns the child because of the court case and gives him up for adoption he won't fare any better, and perhaps worse

hullaballoo wrote:

Also, religion is becoming less and less important in court cases these days because of the idea that what you may or may not believe is not necessarily good for you in this world (whatever about the next), and this world is what we are concerned with as lawyers.

It isn't about religion, it is about the right to self determination, right to dignity, and even the right to privacy. The legal principle up to now has been as dats_right stated it.

I would think this judgement is also legally unsound due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Re a Ward of Court, but it has been a long time since I read that case, so I may be wrong.

hullaballoo

So you don't think that losing a mother is bad for a child?

I just don't know how to answer your second paragraph. You don't think that this is about religion? Where do you think those unenumerated rights came from? Where does the moral code of the courts come from? Where do moral codes in general come from?

Come on, this case wouldn't have ever even become an issue were it not for religion, and the moral standards they advocate.

Anyway, primarily, the decision is correct because of my first point. The court would very much be obliged to protect the child, which includes taking into account its right to have its natural mother. Adoption and abandonment are completely separate issues, to the extent that its ludicrous to try to draw a parallel. In those cases, the issue is that the mother doesn't want the child (or isn't physically/emotionally capable of raising it), in which case it's blatantly better for the child to go into foster/adoptive care.

maidhc

hullaballoo wrote:

So you don't think that losing a mother is bad for a child?

I don't know. I suspect it isn't good, but does the right of the child to have a maternal mother who may or may not car or love him or her exceed the right of an adult to decide on their medical treatment?

hullaballoo wrote:

I just don't know how to answer your second paragraph. You don't think that this is about religion? Where do you think those unenumerated rights came from? Where does the moral code of the courts come from? Where do moral codes in general come from?

Not religion one hopes. Unenumerated rights come inter alia from the natural law (a far broader concept than religion), the christian and democratic nature of the state, preamble of the consitution, and the fundamental characteristings of people as human beings.

What is right and wrong is not a religious issue!

hullaballoo wrote:

Come on, this case wouldn't have ever even become an issue were it not for religion, and the moral standards they advocate.

Rational humans are capable of making decisions on moral issue without the need to refer to a sacred text. E.g. athiests are no more likey to commit crime than the deeply religious.

While in this case the person WAS a Jehova, from a legal POV this is not a relevant issue, it could just as easily have been a personal viewpoint about transfusions.

hullaballoo wrote:

Anyway, primarily, the decision is correct because of my first point. The court would very much be obliged to protect the child, which includes taking into account its right to have its natural mother.

But the child is born and is a viable and healthy being. If the individial concerned here had committed mass murder and just got 8 terms of life imprisonment I don't see how this odd doctrine of a "right to a natural mother" could work... I don't think having a mother in a high security prison until adulthood is any more helpful to a childs development than the same child loosing their mother at a young age.

Our man in Havana

If the doctors did nothing and agreed not to treat her, would they be guilty of aiding and abetting a suicide?

AFAIK aiding and abetting a suicide is still a crime?

maidhc

Bond-007 wrote:

If the doctors did nothing and agreed not to treat her, would they be guilty of aiding and abetting a suicide?

No.

If nature was left to itself she was going to die. Her life ultimately was saved, by artificial means.

Same reason why turning off a life support machine is not murder.

hullaballoo

maidhc wrote:

But the child is born and is a viable and healthy being. If the individial concerned here had committed mass murder and just got 8 terms of life imprisonment I don't see how this odd doctrine of a "right to a natural mother" could work... I don't think having a mother in a high security prison until adulthood is any more helpful to a childs development than the same child loosing their mother at a young age.

You see, you keep drawing these odd parallels. The woman in question wasn't a mass murderer, she isn't in a high-security prison, she didn't abandon her child or put it up for adoption. In fact, there was nothing to indicate that she would have been anything other than an ordinary mother.

The "right to a natural mother" isn't a doctrine in law, and you know that. It's an intrinsic human right, that comes from a rational thought process. You also know that. Anyone can see that it's better to have your natural mother (provided their suitable for parenthood) above a non-natural mother.

Is it sensible to say that the "Christian nature of the state" is connected to religion?

maidhc

hullaballoo wrote:

The "right to a natural mother" isn't a doctrine in law, and you know that. It's an intrinsic human right, that comes from a rational thought process. You also know that. Anyone can see that it's better to have your natural mother (provided their suitable for parenthood) above a non-natural mother.

It isn't a human right. If we go calling everything a right, you end up devaluing the entire concept of "rights". While I agree it is better to have a nautral mother, it has not been demonstrated that it having a natural mother is more important than the ability of adults to refuse medical treatment.

The problem with this case is the can of worms we have. It isn't a case merely about JWs with newborn children. It *could* have massive ramifications and allow doctors over-rule the express wishes of patients on a daily basis because third parties may somehow be affected.

Being in a one parent family isn't that tough, I have been there. I don't think it leaves any emotional scars. Unless you count being a cranky fecker!

hullaballoo wrote:

Is it sensible to say that the "Christian nature of the state" is connected to religion?

It is, but only one of the alleged "sources". The unkind would say unenumerated rights come from the liberal and educated background from which members of the judiciary come.

seamus

dats_right wrote:

Seamus, I am afraid that you are wrong. Suicide hasn't been a crime for 13 years in this jursidiction.

At least I wasn't making it up