Jehovah's Witness Sues For Receiving His Own Blood

[Brown]

Here is an interesting case decided recently by the Iowa Supreme Court. (http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20031008/02-1007.asp) Lester Campbell, a surgical patient at Waterloo’s Covenant Hospital, sued the hospital and Dr. Arnold Delbridge, Campbell’s treating doctor, for reinfusing Campbell’s own blood following surgery.
...
Campbell was reinfused with his own blood for just under an hour.
...
The plaintiff saw a psychiatrist four times, and the psychiatrist referred Campbell to a counselor, a licensed social worker, who was employed by Covenant Clinic Psychiatry. The counselor’s report concluded that “this [reinfusion] was an event that had occurred that was traumatizing and resulting in the rigid thought process, may be triggering a depression that needed to be addressed.”
...
The defendants also contend that the plaintiff can point to no accompanying physical injury to provide a basis for emotional-distress damages.... We believe ... that the plaintiff was not required to establish an accompanying physical injury.To be clear what happened here, a patient is suing a doctor for "negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of contract, medical battery, and invasion of privacy" because he was reinsfused with some of his own blood after surgery. His wished were that he not receive any blood, not even his own, because of his religious beliefs. He suffered no physical harm. He suffered only emotional distress (which he attributed to the medical providers' actions and not to his religious beliefs).

The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that he had a case.

Seems to me the decision was the right one.

First of all, the plaintiff made it well known that he did not want to receive any blood because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. This was noted on his chart and the word was passed around. Someone (for whatever reason) did not get the word, and the plaintiff received therapy that he did not want.

I expect most people would agree that a patient has a right to decide the degree of therapy to which he consents. The plaintiff did not consent to reinfusion, and he made it known that he had very strong religious objections to it.

Second, the issue before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff had enough of a case to bring the matter to a jury, and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that he did. That doesn't mean that he will win his case before a jury, it merely means that he has a right to try to win it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Brown
Here is an interesting case decided recently by the Iowa Supreme Court. (http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20031008/02-1007.asp) To be clear what happened here, a patient is suing a doctor for "negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of contract, medical battery, and invasion of privacy" because he was reinsfused with some of his own blood after surgery. His wished were that he not receive any blood, not even his own, because of his religious beliefs. He suffered no physical harm. He suffered only emotional distress (which he attributed to the medical providers' actions and not to his religious beliefs).

The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that he had a case.

Seems to me the decision was the right one.

First of all, the plaintiff made it well known that he did not want to receive any blood because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. This was noted on his chart and the word was passed around. Someone (for whatever reason) did not get the word, and the plaintiff received therapy that he did not want.

I expect most people would agree that a patient has a right to decide the degree of therapy to which he consents. The plaintiff did not consent to reinfusion, and he made it known that he had very strong religious objections to it.

Second, the issue before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff had enough of a case to bring the matter to a jury, and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that he did. That doesn't mean that he will win his case before a jury, it merely means that he has a right to try to win it.

So if he wins, does that mean the doctor has to take the blood back? :)

[shuize]

From now on just let the Jehovah's Witnesses bleed to death and cite this case as precedent...

[Brown]

Originally posted by shuize
From now on just let the Jehovah's Witnesses bleed to death and cite this case as precedent... Actually, the physician preserved the patient's blood in case reinfusion was medically necessary. In other words, the physician wanted to be ready to save the patient's life, regardless of the patient's religious beliefs.

As it happened, the patient was reinfused without medical necessity.

According to this story, (http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/22456346.html) a spokesman for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York characterized the reinfusion as "a problem" and "an assault on [Jehovah's Witnesses'] dignity." (I have heard similar language used to describe Jehovah's Witnesses' proselytizing tactics.)

[richardm]

Hmm. I always assumed that the JW problem with blood transfusions was that it was in some way a "contamination of the vital fluids", as it were. But apparently not, if having your own blood returned is also an affront.

But if having your own blood infused counts as an affront, then you sort of start to wonder what sort of surgery wouldn't be - why was the guy there in the first place?

Bit odd.

[Brown]

Originally posted by richardm
But if having your own blood infused counts as an affront, then you sort of start to wonder what sort of surgery wouldn't be - why was the guy there in the first place? According to the opinion, he underwent a total right knee arthroplasty, and did not receive any blood products during the surgery.

[Marc]

The belief against transfusion has nothing to do with 'taint', but a bizzar interpertation of scripture. There is one line against eating meat with blood still in it, and the JW took that to extreems to where they reject transfusions.


One case I remember hearing about might raise and interesting debate. A guy accidentally ran over a JW. The woman was badly injured, but could have been saved with a transfusion. Because she rejected it she died, and the driver was charged with manslaughter. Was it right to charge the guy with manslaughter if the victem could easily have been saved, yet chose to die instead?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
One case I remember hearing about might raise and interesting debate. A guy accidentally ran over a JW. The woman was badly injured, but could have been saved with a transfusion. Because she rejected it she died, and the driver was charged with manslaughter. Was it right to charge the guy with manslaughter if the victem could easily have been saved, yet chose to die instead?

References, please? This sounds quite incredible. :eek:

[Marc]

Found a bunch of links for this, here are a few.

JW death caes over (http://www.caic.org.au/jws/medical/pomona.htm)

Crime and Punishment (http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa122198.htm)

Jesus-Witness site (http://www.jesus-witnesses.com/blood2.htm)

The guy was drunk when he hit the woman. She was hurt, but able to tell people at least 10 times she wanted no blood. Prosecution tried to hit the guy with murder, but was convicted for manslaughter due to a prior drunk driving conviction.

Bit of mixed feelings on this. It is good to get a repeat drunk driver off the road, but I would not agree to the manslaughter charge if she would have lived if she took the care that was offered.

[Larspeart]

The doc shouldn't have put the blood back in him, period.

Look, regardless fo how stupid the JW's are, especially in regards to medicine, if the patient doesn't want it, let the dumb SOB bleed to death.

The problem lies in the fact that I'll bet if the doctor DID respect the patients file, and didn't transfuse him, the patients family woudl have sued him somehow.

This world is so messed up it ain't funny no more.

[Ralph]

Anybody see anything wrong with somebody who's supposedly "deeply religious" ..........trying to make a few bucks off of someone who was basically trying to just help.

Something tells me a big pile of money will make all that "depression" & "emotional trauma" vanish like a fart in a hurricane....................

[Brown]

Originally posted by Larspeart
The problem lies in the fact that I'll bet if the doctor DID respect the patients file, and didn't transfuse him, the patients family woudl have sued him somehow.The doctor might agree. The possibility that it might become medically necessary to infuse the patient appears to be one of the considerations behind the doctor's decision to use a Gish device:However, after surgery, Dr. Delbridge ordered the use of a Gish Orthoinfuser (Gish) to collect blood from the surgical site. The doctor decided to use the Gish, as opposed to other devices, because the Gish provided a reservoir where blood can be stored for disposal or possible reinfusion, and it provided the best suction. Further, use of the Gish would preserve Campbell’s ability to change his mind about receiving his own blood should it become medically necessary. By the way, the doctor did order that the patient not be given blood, but a nurse did not get the message.

[Skeptical Greg]

What I find confusing about all of this, is that I thought JW's were pretty big on ' not ' sueing people, as this is also spelled out pretty clearly in the Bible..

Oh well..:rolleyes:

[Zep]

If the JW chooses to refuse treatment then so be it. What needs to be cleared up is who takes the rap when it all goes wrong. The JW can't have his (religious) cake and eat it too (by suing).

The JW should have received treatment ONLY after signing a full legal release along the lines that if an infusion is reckoned medically necessary and that he refuses it then the JW and only the JW will be responsible for any subsequent problems or death. Copies to JW's lawyers, family, etc, etc. Leave him with the responsibility for his own choice.

[Malachi151]

This is retarded. If he did not give him the transfusion and it resulted in a complication he would have been leaving himself open to malpractice.

The solutoin here is easy, just refuse to treat JWs for anything anymore.

Requesting that a doctor choose negligant options during treatment is just not right.

[shuize]

Hey, this may be the second time I've been caught agreeing with Malachi:

Originally posted by shuize
From now on just let the Jehovah's Witnesses bleed to death and cite this case as precedent...

Originally posted by Malachi151
The solution here is easy, just refuse to treat JWs for anything anymore...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Malachi151
This is retarded. If he did not give him the transfusion and it resulted in a complication he would have been leaving himself open to malpractice.

The solutoin here is easy, just refuse to treat JWs for anything anymore.

Requesting that a doctor choose negligant options during treatment is just not right. That would be "failure to provide treatment due to doctor/hospital bias against the patient." Who next would they turn away on religious grounds - Orthodox Jews???