Blood Transfusions And Its Effects On Society

The purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics, values and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witness group. It will discuss their reasoning for refusal to accept blood transfusions. The paper will elaborate on the best approach to offer appropriate care, advice and education while treating patients with respect in regards to their religious beliefs. British Journal of Nursing (2009) suggests that good, honest communication, without any element of coercion or scare tactics, is the key in the management of Jehovah’s Witness patients.

Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.

Allowing someone to die: Some religious affiliations (Jehovah’s witness) will not receive a blood transfusion. They have decided not to take advantage of medical technology to preserve life. If such person is in a life & death situation and required a blood transfusion in order to survive the choose to die vs. receiving a blood transfusion.

Is our society’s strict adherence to religious freedoms costing the lives of innocent children? The Christian Science Church rely on the Establishment Clause and The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as granting themselves and their children exemption from medical intervention. But because of their insistence in relying solely on prayer for the healing their sick children, approximately one child a month in the U.S. is known to die from an illness that would have been curable had they had medical attention. 1 Religious liberties of parents might protect their beliefs, but it should not protect their conduct of denying the rights of a child to his or her life.

Over the course of time, there have been many debates dealing with religion and various laws. A concern that has arisen from these debates was the denial of health care for these religious families, and how it would impacts the children. There are many various opinions on this topic ranging from a strong belief in the healing powers of God to a strong stance that the refusal of health care results in child abuse. These self healing parents believe that medicine is not need to heal themselves or children. Instead, they believe that God is all they need to be healthy. However, should the religious belief of these parents give them the right to refuse health care for their family? While these parents should be allowed to express their

For many people Christianity is the religion of choice and a way of life. Jehovah?s Witnesses are one subgroup of the Christian faith. The JW religion was founded in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell. They comprise 1.2 million of the U.S. population (Campbell, Y., Machan M., & Fisher, M., 2016). They present a unique challenge to the medical community because of their stance on blood transfusions. Part I will provide a

Julian Savulescu and Richard W. Momeyer, wrote an article expressing their theories on informed consent being based on rational beliefs. The article constructed around Jehovah Witnesses rejecting blood transfusions, and how it is theoretically irrational. Both pressed the reasoning of irrationality due to fear being based on an interpretation inconsistent with all passages of the Bible and Christian practices. Thus leading to the concussion Jehovah Witnesses are uninformed of the conflicting Biblical passages, and not fully autonomous in their decision making. Suggesting when patients act on their autonomy while regarding medical care, it must derive from rational beliefs or it will be false autonomy.

Reverend Jim voluntarily came into the emergency room with gastric discomfort and was restrained by hospital orderlies to be examined against his will. This examination supposedly led to Reverend Jim’s recovery of a gastric bleed that may have cost him his life. In this paper I will explain through ethical theories why the doctor’s paternal intervention of Jim was not justified even if it saved Jim’s life. This will be explained through ethical theories of justification. Counterpoints in favor of the ethics of Jim’s restraint will also be discussed.

In the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy”, there is Mike and Joanne, who are the parents of twin boys, James and Samuel. James contracted strep throat and ended up with one of the complications from this illness: acute glomerulonephritis. The acute glomerulonephritis subsequently caused acute kidney failure leading to further complications with James’ health. In addition to the stress of the illness, the parents are struggling on how to base their medical decisions based on their Christian faith. Using the Christian narrative and Christian vision there are several issues that will be explored throughout this paper. The issues include how Christians perceive illness and health, organ donation, and ethical and moral issues involving faith-based actions.

These individuals believe that blood transfusions are not safe and might cause great damage to a one’s health. The refusal of blood by Jehovah Witnesses has benefited the field of medicine because it has changed the way in which

Here in the United States, there are medical facilities who because of their religious affiliations are not able to function to the highest level of care. It is because of these facilities, mainly hospitals, and their adherence the religious doctrines that are set forth by either churches or other religious orders, that people may find that they can be denied certain procedures forcing people to face unneeded consequences. The group of people that can specifically fine themselves denied are women, with reproductive health being the main concern of subpar care. Therefore, it is the responsibility that even though a hospital may have a religious affiliation it should provide equivalent medical care. So they fulfill their intended purpose as a hospital, equipping their doctors with the full

Therefore, I believe that the patient’s autonomy ethically outweighs physician’s duty to prevent harm. However if the patient in were a 5-year old child whose parents were devout Jehovah’s Witness’, the physician may prioritize beneficence and legally override the surrogate decisionmakers’ choice to prevent the child’s death. In this case, the child is in a vulnerable state and may not hold the same religious beliefs as the parents. I argue that the decision is not in the best interest of the patient, and therefore the wellbeing of the child outweighs the autonomous choice of the surrogate decisionmakers. Therefore, it can be demonstrated that the importance of the principles differ based on context and they

Am actual account of religious beliefs and shunning of medical treatment was first recorded in 2009 with a Northeast Philadelphia family. The family whose religion shunned traditional medicine allowed an infant son to pass away at a nearby hospital. In 2009 according to an article published in the Newsworks Philadelphia Newspaper written by

Jehovah Witnesses refusal of blood transfusion is one example of choices people have in health care philosophies. This refusal of blood transfusions is based off of the Genesis 9:4

"You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). This is just one of the several scriptures found in the bible from which the Jehovah Witnesses base their beliefs. To summarize the above excerpt, Jehovah Witnesses strongly believe that contributing to the health of their bodies by way of any type of blood material is not intended by God’s will. However in dire cases, ethical questions need to be raised regarding the patient’s mental capacity and legal competence. In particular cases concerning minor patients, where mental capacity is accounted for, parents should not have the dominant opinion about how their child wants to receive surgery based on their own personal beliefs.