YOUR RIGHT IS RECOGNIZED

In many places today, the patient has an inviolable right to decide what treatment he will accept. “The law of informed consent has been based on two premises: first, that a patient has the right to receive sufficient information to make an informed choice about the treatment recommended; and second, that the patient may choose to accept or to decline the physician’s recommendation. . . . Unless patients are viewed as having the right to say no, as well as yes, and even yes with conditions, much of the rationale for informed consent evaporates.”—Informed Consent—Legal Theory and Clinical Practice, 1987.a

Some patients have encountered resistance when they have tried to exercise their right. It might have been from a friend having strong feelings about a tonsillectomy or about antibiotics. Or a physician might have been convinced of the rightness of his advice. A hospital official might even have disagreed, based on legal or financial interests.

“Many orthopaedists elect not to operate on [Witness] patients,” says Dr. Carl L. Nelson. “It is our belief that the patient has the right to refuse any type of medical therapy. If it is technically possible to provide surgery safely while excluding a particular treatment, such as transfusion, then it should exist as an option.”—The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, March 1986.

A considerate patient will not pressure a physician to use a therapy at which the doctor is unskilled. As Dr. Nelson noted, though, many dedicated physicians can accommodate the patient’s beliefs. A German official advised: “The doctor cannot refuse to render aid . . . reasoning that with a Jehovah’s Witness not all medical alternatives are at his disposal. He still has a duty to render assistance even when the avenues open to him are reduced.” (Der Frauenarzt, May-June 1983) Similarly, hospitals exist not merely to make money but to serve all people without discrimination. Catholic theologian Richard J. Devine states: “Although the hospital must make every other medical effort to preserve the patient’s life and health, it must ensure that medical care does not violate [his] conscience. Moreover, it must avoid all forms of coercion, from cajoling the patient to obtaining a court order to force a blood transfusion.”—Health Progress, June 1989.

RATHER THAN THE COURTS

Many people agree that a court is no place for personal medical issues. How would you feel if you chose antibiotic therapy but someone went to court to force a tonsillectomy on you? A doctor may want to provide what he thinks is the best care, but he has no duty to seek legal justification to trample on your basic rights. And since the Bible puts abstaining from blood on the same moral level as avoiding fornication, to force blood on a Christian would be the equivalent of forcible sex—rape.—Acts 15:28, 29.

Yet, Informed Consent for Blood Transfusion (1989) reports that some courts are so distressed when a patient is willing to accept a certain risk because of his religious rights “that they make up some legal exceptions—legal fictions, if you will—to allow a transfusion to occur.” They might try to excuse it by saying that a pregnancy is involved or that there are children to be supported. “Those are legal fictions,” the book says. “Competent adults are entitled to refuse treatment.”

Some who insist on transfusing blood ignore the fact that Witnesses do not decline all therapies. They reject just one therapy, which even experts say is fraught with danger. Usually a medical problem can be managed in a variety of ways. One has this risk, another that risk. Can a court or a doctor paternalistically know which risk is “in your best interests”? You are the one to judge that. Jehovah’s Witnesses are firm that they do not want someone else to decide for them; it is their personal responsibility before God.

If a court forced an abhorrent treatment on you, how might this affect your conscience and the vital element of your will to live? Dr. Konrad Drebinger wrote: “It would certainly be a misguided form of medical ambition that would lead one to force a patient to accept a given therapy, overruling his conscience, so as to treat him physically but dealing his psyche a mortal blow.”—Der Praktische Arzt, July 1978.

[Box on page 20]

United States: “Underlying the necessity for patient consent is the ethical concept of individual autonomy, that decisions about one’s own fate should be made by the person involved. The legal ground for requiring consent is that a medical act performed without the patient’s consent constitutes battery.”—“Informed Consent for Blood Transfusion,” 1989.

Germany: “The patient’s right of self-determination overrides the principle of rendering assistance and preservation of life. As a result: no blood transfusion against the will of the patient.”—“Herz Kreislauf,” August 1987.

Japan: “There is no ‘absolute’ in the medical world. Doctors believe that the course of modern medicine is the best and follow its course, but they should not force every detail of it as an ‘absolute’ on patients. Patients too must have freedom of choice.”—“Minami Nihon Shimbun,” June 28, 1985.