Jehovah’s Witness: Scenario 1
It is a doctor’s duty to use their medical experience and knowledge to provide their patients with the most effective medical treatments. However, mentally capable adult patients are ultimately able to accept or refuse medical treatment. Patients are protected by the concept of autonomy, which indicates “individuals are able to make their own decisions and have them respected by others” (Weiss & Lonnquist, 2015). Patients of sound mind are also protected by their right to provide informed consent to medical care before a doctor can legally treat them.
The patient in scenario 1 is an intellectually competent, middle-age man who refuses a blood transfusion on the grounds of his religion. Although the man is potentially going to die without the blood transfusion, the doctor should respect his wishes and focuses on other avenues of treatment. This man is practicing autonomy, which is his right to control what happens to his body. The patient’s religious beliefs ultimately trump the doctor’s medical advice.
Jehovah’s Witness: Scenario 2
The next scenario is similar to the first scenario. The patient is a young mother …show more content…
The patient is an infant that needs a blood transfusion in order to survive. The infant’s parents are refusing the blood transfusion on grounds of religion. While the parents are legally responsible for making medical decisions for their baby, it is also possible to argue that the infant is not capable of deciding their religious beliefs. In this case, the doctor might decide to practice paternalism, which occurs when a doctor “overrides a patient’s wishes and takes an action presumed to be in the patient’s best interest but is unwanted by the patient” (2015). However, it is possible that practicing paternalism by giving the infant a lifesaving blood transfusion against the parents wishes, could result in a lawsuit towards the doctor or the
It is a doctor’s duty to use their medical experience and knowledge to provide their patients with the most effective medical treatments. However, mentally capable adult patients are ultimately able to accept or refuse medical treatment. Patients are protected by the concept of autonomy, which indicates “individuals are able to make their own decisions and have them respected by others” (Weiss & Lonnquist, 2015). Patients of sound mind are also protected by their right to provide informed consent to medical care before a doctor can legally treat them.
The patient in scenario 1 is an intellectually competent, middle-age man who refuses a blood transfusion on the grounds of his religion. Although the man is potentially going to die without the blood transfusion, the doctor should respect his wishes and focuses on other avenues of treatment. This man is practicing autonomy, which is his right to control what happens to his body. The patient’s religious beliefs ultimately trump the doctor’s medical advice.
Jehovah’s Witness: Scenario 2
The next scenario is similar to the first scenario. The patient is a young mother …show more content…
The patient is an infant that needs a blood transfusion in order to survive. The infant’s parents are refusing the blood transfusion on grounds of religion. While the parents are legally responsible for making medical decisions for their baby, it is also possible to argue that the infant is not capable of deciding their religious beliefs. In this case, the doctor might decide to practice paternalism, which occurs when a doctor “overrides a patient’s wishes and takes an action presumed to be in the patient’s best interest but is unwanted by the patient” (2015). However, it is possible that practicing paternalism by giving the infant a lifesaving blood transfusion against the parents wishes, could result in a lawsuit towards the doctor or the