Main Article Content
Medicine, religion and faith: issues in Jehovah’s Witnesses and major surgery
Abstract
Methodology: Medical literature on the subject was reviewed using manual library search, articles in journals and internet search. The search words were: Jehovah’s Witness + blood transfusion +legal and ethical issues. The search was done using Pubmed, Medline, Hinari and Medscape, as search engines. The search covered a period between 1940 and 2013.
Results: Jehovah's witnesses do not argue that blood transfusions have not kept alive patients who otherwise might have died, "but to them, such life is vacuous”. Jehovah's Witnesses, therefore, are exercising a fundamental right of any sane adult with capacity to refuse medical treatment. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses have a higher mortality rate after traumatic injury or surgery despite their refusal to accept blood transfusion. As a result of these findings, an increasing number of patients are refusing blood transfusion even for non-religious reasons. Transfusion avoidance strategies are, therefore, desirable. These strategies are likely to gain popularity, and become standard practice for all patients. Dearth of legal statutes in our environment is a major limitation. The legal issues sometimes are conflicting in the setting of emergency and minors.
Conclusion: Respect for a patient’s wish and autonomy is sacrosanct. Where a sane adult has expressly rejected a particular treatment option, applying the same option in whatever guise is unethical, and legally, damaging. When in doubt, especially in the minors, the doctor should obtain a court order before administering the life-saving treatment. Every hospital must have institutional protocols for managing these patients.