Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusion

In taking care of a patient, it is important for nurses to respect the patient, their beliefs, and their right to autonomy. Provision One in the Code of Ethics states “the nurse practices with compassion and respect for inherent dignity, worth, and unique attributes of every person” (ANA, 2015, p. 7). With a Jehovah’s Witness patient, the nurse must first acquire information regarding their religion and how it may impact their care and their wishes related to their healthcare. Once their patient’s beliefs are noted and understood, the nurse must establish a professional and therapeutic relationship with their patient without bias to their religion and the associated beliefs. The duty to act without bias can be found outlined in Provision 1.2 (ANA, 2015).

If a Jehovah witness comes into the hospital in need of a blood transfusion the doctors and nurses must respect the patient’s wishes not to have a blood transfusion.

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.

When it comes to saving someone’s life or respecting a cultural belief, the best advice would be to respect the client’s wishes. For instance, if a nurse has a patient who is an unconscious Jehovah witness and is in need of a blood transfusion, it is important that the nurse recognizes this belief and respects the

Notably, Jehovah Witness patients’ religious teachings prohibit their believers from Blood transfusion, euthanasia, autopsy and Artificial insemination. These medical practices are against the Biblical teachings of the Jehovah Witness since they consider them to be unholy. Further, they believe the medical interventions to interfere with God’s intentions for human life hence they disallow their followers from practicing

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

In the case where the patient makes their strong religious beliefs verbal to the healthcare provider they have an obligation to make certain there is no documented religious preference in their previous records or if the patient has a Living Will on file. The recent admission documentation may have been entered incorrectly or the patients religious preference many have not been transcribed. If this was my patient and he expressed his strong objections to a blood transfusion. I would have documented this and brought this to the attention of his doctor prior to the procedure. Also, I would exhaust every avenue to insure that this patient had no documents on file. The healthcare provider should feel an obligation to check all prior admission documentation available in unique situations. I believe this is incumbent that personnel make the best choice possible in sensitive cases. Also, contacting the patient’s primary care physician may offer some missed documentation concerning the patient’s religious preference. If no religious preference past or present has been documented. I would ethically have a problem with the blood transfusion based on my conversation with the

I have had patients with cultural belief of refusing blood products. When getting report I was told the nurse tried to convince them to receive the blood transfusion. They refused even when told they could die without it.

“I feel that the recent ruling of the United States Army and Navy regarding the refusal of colored blood donors is an indefensible one from any point of view. As you know, there is no scientific basis for the separation of the bloods of different races except on the basis of the individual blood types or groups.” This famous quote is from Charles Drew, an African American surgeon, teacher, and doctor. Charles was a surgeon and was a big part of transfusion in WW1.

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.

The ethical principles of beneficence, and nonmaleficence from a patient who is refusing blood transfusion believed that refusal of this treatment would honor the benefits over harm. Based on the values practiced among the Jehovah’s Witness members, the harm resulting from receiving the blood transfusion will cause a dismissal in achieving an eternal salvation. Nevertheless, the harm resulting from refusing the blood transfusion will create less harm, which is the end of one’s mortal life on earth. The belief of the Jehovah’s Witness members pertains to a rational decision, which the eternal salvation preferred substantially compared with the additional years of temporary life on earth (Macklin, 2003). The ethical principle of justice from a patient pertains to a fair, and equal provision of respect regardless of the patient’s cultural or religious beliefs. However, the

Jehovah’s witnesses are able to received medical care, but they are not able to receive any blood transfusion because of their beliefs. The patients’ that are Jehovah witnesses are not allowed to accept any blood transfusion, not even if it’s their own blood that has being preserved. They are not allowed to consume anything that has blood by product, whether it’s medication or in food (Ehman, 2012). Some adults of this faith are known to carry a card that states treatment without blood. When it comes to organ donations and transplantation that is strictly up to the individual whether they choose to or not.

"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.