Woman’s transfusion was like ‘rape’

MEDICAL professionals and Jehovah’s Witnesses have clashed over whether or not the intervention by the High Court to save the life of a seriously ill African woman undermines their long-standing consensus on declining blood transfusions.

The 23-year-old Congolese woman, who suffered a major haemorrhage after giving birth to a healthy baby boy, had refused the treatment on religious grounds because she is a Jehovah’s Witness.

Believed to be the first case of its kind involving an adult in Ireland, the court ruled the Coombe Hospital must put the interests of the child first and save the mother’s life.

Anaesthetists, who administer all blood transfusions, said the High Court decision was in keeping with best practice.

In contrast the Jehovah Witness community feels the ruling “flies in the face” of what has been agreed with the profession and amounts to a court sanctioned “physical assault”.

The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland yesterday said from its initial reading of the case it was one of the exceptional situations where a Specific Issue Order could be sought from the courts.

Dr Michael Ward, the chairman of its working group on the management of Jehovah’s Witness patients, says the rights of the child “outweighed the rights of the mother to deny” that child a sufficient chance of life.

“The situation must have been a desperate one and I can understand the difficulties for clinical staff, caring for the mother, who approached the law.”

However, Dr Ward added that it was the policy of the AAGBI that an SIO “should only be applied for when it is felt to be entirely necessary to save the child in an elective or semi-elective situation”.

The AAGBI advises its members that by forcing blood transfusions on Jehovah’s Witnesses medical professionals are leaving themselves open to civil and potentially criminal proceedings.

Ewen Watt, from the Irish Watchtower Organisation for Jehovah’s Witnesses described the ruling as one which would undermine the agreements it had with the AAGBI.

“It has raised all sorts of issues for better and for worse, but you have to think of the individual and the assault that was performed on this girl. She will feel as though she has been raped.

“There is shock and dismay (among Jehovah’s Witnesses) about this ruling. It flies in the face of everything that had been decided and at the moment I am not sure where it leaves us.”

Mr Watt said the Watchtower Organisation will have to take time to study the impact of the ruling and seek advice from its international network before it decides whether or not it will challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.

Similarly Dr Ward said that the AAGBI will examine the case in full before it arrives at a final conclusion.

“I do not feel that any changes need to be made to the existing advice from the AAGBI at this time as a result of this case, but once the details are clarified the association will be in a better position to reconsider this point.”