Nhung (Kristen) Nguyen
Reflection on the Jehovah's Witness Blood Donation Case
In my opinion, this is a tough ethical case. The two-year-old child needs an urgent blood
transfusion but is refused by the parents on the basis of their religious teaching. Major
stakeholders will include the child, the parents, the surgeon, and the legal system. The
consent of the child is not applicable as the child cannot decide about its treatment. The
parents base their decision on their religious teachings, and the surgeon must decide to
respect the family's wishes or save the life of the child.
The ethical issues involve autonomy, beneficence, and the best interest of the child.
Although an adult may refuse medical treatment for himself, the right to life and proper
care of a child often overrides this in both legal and medical contexts. With this in mind,
the decision of the surgeon to transfuse the child without consent brings in the issue of
medical paternalism, but in emergencies, doctors are expected to act in ways that
maximize survival. Indeed, the courts have often decided in favor of life-saving
treatment for minors, despite religious objections.
I feel that the surgeon is making the right call. A child should not be denied any lifesaving care because of a choice he has no say in. It is always important that religious
beliefs be given their due respect, but when a life is in jeopardy at the present time,
doctors must take action. In such cases, the right to live of the child should override the
parental decisions, and the call must always be for health and survival.