Jehovah’s Witnesses call for blood transfusion protocol

JEHOVAH’S Witnesses have called for meetings with hospital authorities to establish a protocol for dealing with emergencies where blood transfusions are recommended for its members.

It follows yesterday’s High Court ruling that the Coombe Hospital in Dublin acted lawfully in giving a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness who wished to refuse the treatment in 2006.

Harry Homan, spokesman for the religious congregation which has an estimated 5,000, members in the Republic, said Jehovah’s Witnesses were encouraged by the court’s recommendation that guidelines should be put in place for addressing their concerns about blood transfusions before emergencies arise.

Mr Homan said he also hoped Irish doctors would examine alternative bloodless procedures so Jehovah’s Witnesses could live in accordance with the bible’s teachings.

However, medical and legal experts have warned uncertainty still surrounds cases where patients are deemed competent to make informed decisions to refuse specific treatments.

In yesterday’s 153-page judgment, the court expressed satisfaction the capacity of the patient — known only as Ms K — to refuse appropriate medical treatment was impaired because of her condition.

It granted the declaration sought by the Master of the Coombe, Dr Chris Fitzpatrick, that he was entitled to seek a court order which allowed the hospital to give a blood transfusion to a 23-year-old woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo in September 2006.

The landmark case arose from the refusal by the patient to have the transfusion on religious grounds, despite suffering from massive haemorrhaging after giving birth.

The woman counterclaimed the transfusion represented an assault and trespass on her person and was a breach of the EU Convention on Human rights.

However, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy ruled the woman had received the “appropriate medical treatment” and the hospital had not exceeded its authority in giving her a transfusion.

“The situation in which Ms K was transfused against her wishes unfortunately was of her own making,” she noted. Ms K had falsely claimed she was a Roman Catholic when first admitted to the hospital.

Judge Laffoy recommended every maternity hospital should adopt guidelines for the management of bleeding during pregnancy by women who refuse blood transfusions.

She noted that guidelines had already been put in place by the Rotunda Hospital, although she pointed out she was expressing no view on their adequacy to addressing legal issues.

Judge Laffoy also recommended women should be specifically asked if they would accept a blood transfusion in the case of an emergency when being admitted to maternity hospitals.

“Although the facts of this case are unlikely to be replicated, it would be unfortunate if the lessons to be learned from it did not make it easier for medical and legal personnel to cope better with the type of crisis to which Ms K’s circumstances gave rise in the future,” said Judge Laffoy.

Controversy surrounding the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to undergo blood transfusions also arose earlier this week when the High Court ruled doctors could give a life-saving blood transfusion to severely anaemic twins after they are born, despite opposition from their parents who are both members of the religious congregation.

The alternative: ‘Bloodless’ procedures

* Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions based on their interpretation of various extracts from the Bible.

* Members of the religion maintain there are bloodless surgical techniques to act as suitable alternatives to blood transfusions for people who lose a lot of blood.

* One method called “cell salvage” involves the siphoning, filtering and restoration of blood lost during surgery.

* Blood volumes can also be replaced without using whole blood or blood plasma, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

* They argue saline (salt) and other solutions can be used to help patients regenerate red cells.