Rotation In The Emergency Room

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

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

One being fifty-seven year old Georgette Malette’s case. Malette was in a car accident in 1979 that had left her unconscious. Her husband, who was driving the car, had been killed and she was suffering from some very serious injuries. “Malette was a Jehovah’s Witness and carried a card stating her firm conviction that no blood or blood products should be administered to her under any circumstances.” (Georgette Malette, Euthanasia Cases). The doctor, Dr. Shulman, ended up administering the blood. He completely ignored her card that stated that she was completely against anyone giving her blood. Shulman stated that, “it was medically indicated” (Malette v. Shulman, NCBI), when he was defending himself in the court case that Malette had brought up against him. Even though her refusal of treatment had been clearly stated, no charges had been administered to

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

Salandy v. Byrk (2008), the informed consent was confusing and contradicting to blood transfusions. A provider did not communicate this to the surgeon and a blood transfusion was given to a Jehovah’s Witness. The surgeon is responsible for reading the consent of its entirety. The consent should be on the medical chart and all blanks completed. Any discrepancies should be addressed prior to surgery.

Different religious groups have different believe system in the provision of the healthcare. The health personnel such as doctors and nurses should be aware of the religious beliefs of their patients for effectively delivering medical care. In provision of medical care, religious faith and beliefs of the patient is incorporated with the scientific medical care in offering a holistic medical to the patients. The medical personnel should take into the consideration the religious belief of the patient in the course of offering medical care to the patient. The

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

According to the first principle, nonmaleficience, it would not be appropriate as a professional to practice medicine based on his or her own beliefs and not consider the patients feelings about the operation. In this particular case, regarding religious constrictions the doctor must decide if the patients’ needs outweigh the ethical belief of nonmaleficience. Asserting empathy in this case could prove to be a problem. How does a person wholly understand the beliefs of another when they have not been exposed to those beliefs and culture that supplied this person with their values of living? Understanding a patient’s background can significantly impact a decision. If a doctor were to treat a Jehovah Witness with blood they need to understand the impact they would be having on their patient’s life.

The general awareness among patients on their rights during a medical procedure often conflict with the morals of the healthcare industry. Many times healthcare professionals are caught between

There are four commonly accepted principles of bioethics. The first is the principle of respect for autonomy. Respect for autonomy is a respect for the client to make informed and intentional decisions, provided that the client is judged to be capable of doing so. This principle is the base for the practice of informed consent as well as the right to accept or refuse treatment. The client is to be able to make a rational, informed decision, without any external factors influencing any decisions. This principle may cause what the health care professional perceives to be harm, but to the client, like a muslim client refusing to have a xenotransplantation from a pig, accepting the treatment would cause him to suffer