A decision has been reached by the High Court, permitting a hospital to administer a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness patient, should the need arise. This ruling was handed down on Wednesday by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor, who acknowledged the potential life or death urgency of the patient’s situation.
Whilst expressing his respect for the patient’s religious observances, Mr Justice O’Connor highlighted that the man at present lacks the ability to make an informed decision about his own healthcare. He noted that the hospital had not received an Advance Care Directive. This is a document adopted by members of the Jehovah’s Witness religion, expressing their wish to refuse all blood or blood products under all circumstances.
The court was informed that the patient, whose identity has been withheld due to legal reasons, could potentially require a blood transfusion if his condition worsens, in order to either preserve his life or prevent additional injuries. The patient is currently under intensive care after being involved in a severe traffic collision. His communication abilities are currently impeded due to medical interventions, including the use of a ventilator and tube-fed medication.
It was highlighted by Donal McGuinness BL, representing the hospital, that the patient’s family, citing religious concerns, would not approve of any involvement of blood or blood products in his treatment.
Although a transfusion is not required at this point, one may be necessary if his condition worsens, which could possibly save his life or mitigate further injuries.
Mr McGuinness detailed a complex situation, where the patient, after it was revealed that he is a Jehovah’s Witness, provided inconsistent instructions regarding his acceptance of a blood transfusion. It was agreed by the hospital that the man, due to his injuries, did not currently have the mental capacity to give consent or refuse this manner of treatment.
Further complicating matters, the hospital was informed by the family that the patient had previously signed a document refusing a blood transfusion due to religious reasons. However, no such document could be found by the family despite a thorough search.
The gentleman’s partner, whilst restating their religiously-based opposition to blood transfusions, made it known to the court that they were not going against the hospital’s application. It was brought to the court’s attention that the family was hoping the gentleman’s health would progressively improve eliminating the need for a transfusion. Gratitude was expressed by the family for the medical care the hospital had provided for him so far.
Post granting the desired court orders to the hospital, the judge indicated the hospital’s option to revisit the court and request to revoke the order if the gentleman’s health considerably improved, gaining capability to lucidly communicate his treatment decisions.