Jehovah’s Witnesses pose great challenges to the medical field by refusing to accept blood transfusions. A variety of aspects of medicine, such as surgery and trauma, use blood transfusions for the preservation of life. Philip Baron, a professor or law, argues that the state has interests in preserving human life as well as “protecting the professional ethics and discretion of the medical profession”. These two interests create conflict between upholding patient autonomy and preserving human life. Medical and legal precedents provide physicians with ways to treat Jehovah’s Witnesses that consider both the religious beliefs and the Hippocratic Oath.
As the medical field has made advancement in technologies, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ have altered …show more content…
By 2000, the WTS permitted components of whole blood and plasma. Other changes included allowing their members to receive antibodies, vaccinations, and inoculations derived from blood. This is the result of advancements in blood tests that confirm the blood is not contaminated with diseases and the body will not reject the blood. Dr. Muramoto argues that changes have also come about because current “medical treatments mostly involve blood components instead of whole blood,” which resulted in the WTS publishing a list of prohibited and permitted components”. While these changes have led to an increase in options for medical treatments for Jehovah’s witnesses, they have also led to confusion as to what components and procedures the WTS permits. For those of consenting age, physicians must provide patients with enough information to obtain informed consent to allow patients to …show more content…
According to the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969, the parent can lose custody of the child if the child’s “health is being inavoidably impaired or neglected, of that he is being ill-treated and also that he is in need of care which he[sic] is unlikely to receive unless that Court makes an order”. This Act has allowed judicial intervention when the health of a minor is at stake. Beckford explains how a hospital administration can “call for a special session of the juvenile court in order to seek an order making the child a ward of the court;” and “if the application [succeeds], the court [will] likely to sanction blood transfusion”. Drew advises physicians to “obtain both the written support of a colleague that the patient was in urgent need of a blood transfusion and the written acknowledgment of the patient’s parent or guardian that he or she refused to allow the patient to have a blood transfusion despite the life-threatening nature of the problem”. This serves as justification for bringing the child’s case before the court and reaffirms the necessity of the treatment. Medical professionals must consider the child’s health and the court’s ability to consider the medical and spiritual implications for the
As the medical field has made advancement in technologies, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ have altered …show more content…
By 2000, the WTS permitted components of whole blood and plasma. Other changes included allowing their members to receive antibodies, vaccinations, and inoculations derived from blood. This is the result of advancements in blood tests that confirm the blood is not contaminated with diseases and the body will not reject the blood. Dr. Muramoto argues that changes have also come about because current “medical treatments mostly involve blood components instead of whole blood,” which resulted in the WTS publishing a list of prohibited and permitted components”. While these changes have led to an increase in options for medical treatments for Jehovah’s witnesses, they have also led to confusion as to what components and procedures the WTS permits. For those of consenting age, physicians must provide patients with enough information to obtain informed consent to allow patients to …show more content…
According to the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969, the parent can lose custody of the child if the child’s “health is being inavoidably impaired or neglected, of that he is being ill-treated and also that he is in need of care which he[sic] is unlikely to receive unless that Court makes an order”. This Act has allowed judicial intervention when the health of a minor is at stake. Beckford explains how a hospital administration can “call for a special session of the juvenile court in order to seek an order making the child a ward of the court;” and “if the application [succeeds], the court [will] likely to sanction blood transfusion”. Drew advises physicians to “obtain both the written support of a colleague that the patient was in urgent need of a blood transfusion and the written acknowledgment of the patient’s parent or guardian that he or she refused to allow the patient to have a blood transfusion despite the life-threatening nature of the problem”. This serves as justification for bringing the child’s case before the court and reaffirms the necessity of the treatment. Medical professionals must consider the child’s health and the court’s ability to consider the medical and spiritual implications for the