What if someone gets a blood transfusion and this is against their religion?

My question is this....if my loved one is unconscious and unable to agree to a blood transfusion (and they would normally refuse this on religious grounds) would I be able to be held accountable for saving a life? Should I be charged with attempting to save a life against someone's will?

There are those who have standing orders or "DNR"--Do Not Resuscitate. Can a hospital be sued for not following such orders?

Would this be a violation of the person's rights--to administer life saving measures they do not want?

Could the medical staff and responsible party be charged with anything by saving this person's life?

I would do anything in my power to save my loved ones life. Including violation their edict for blood. Once they were out of the woods, you can apply bible information to show them t heir error in theology. If thy end up never speaking to you, at least you saved their life.

Then you can consider that the WBTS is changing their views on blood transfusions as the days go bye, eventually it will be a mater of conscience and your loved one might see the flaws in their doctrine when they change them.

Who knows, your loved one might eventually get disfellowshipped for not adopting the new light witness rules, wouldn't that be a switch.

The main problem lies in religion itself which does not allow blood transfusion to save the life even in desperate condition.

Docs save lives... that is their profession. Ask questions later.

A persons rights is a persons rights. To violate them is breaking the law. If a person chooses DNR, then DNR. It is THEIR life to choose.. not yours.

To save them would be greedy for yourself, not for them. I don't think G_D teaches to be greedy of one self. But just the opposite and to love and accept each as a brother.

My Gpa had a DNR after his cancer surgery cause it got so bad. 2nd time in, all we could do is let him die. His choice, his life.

If a doctor violates a DNR, he/she can be charged with assault. It can cost him his license.

If a person is unconscious, has not expressed a desire, and you're the next closest relative, then you can authorize pretty much anything you want, even over the objections of other family members. That was what the whole Terry Schiavo (I don't know if I've spelled that correctly) case was about.

Would it be a violation of their "rights"? Legally, no. Morally, that's your call. I'd have to think about that one.

If you, as the nearest relative, authorized the procedure, then the hospital and doctors are in the clear legally.

Hospitals legally must follow DNR's. They not only could be sued, but they probably would be sued. Doctors have lost their licenses over less. A good doctor wouldn't allow you to make the decision over your loved one's standing order.

BTW, didn't you read about the case in North Carolina about the boy with leukemia who recently passed away? He refused medical treatment because he's a JW. His parents went to court to try to force treatment but the judge decided it was the boys decision.

Yes, a hospital and/or medical professional can (and many have been!!) be sued for malpractice and in some cases assault for ignoring DNR's or performing medical procedures that are against a person's wishes and/or religious practices.

Ask this under Legal and see if you can get a more direct answer. If I was a doctor, I'd be concerned with saving the life.

The one who has been misled by his religion to refuse a saving grace from a loved one must consequently take responsibility for whatever happens to him.

Your volition as well as others who wish to help is right, however, the reciepient does not desire it.

The patient should be left alone.

Your mixing religion with medicine and medicine is the stronger force. If the person can not say, then the people responding have no choice then to save the life. Religously, God forgives thru Jesus all sin so we forgive as he does to be forgiven, why seek retribution for love?

yea hospitals can get sued for not following a DNR request and the whole no blood thing JW's do not except blood transfusions and they carry a little card that says no blood with them like in their wallet or whatever. i am a JW and i keep mine taped to the back of my ID since thats the 1st thing docs look for it will be with my ID since most most go lookin through someones wallet.

A Jehovah's Witness would never take blood. If they were unconscious they would still Not want blood. If you allowed the transfusion and they got a blood born disease and suffered how would you feel?
Blood was forbidden by God. All true Witnesses want their eternal life, they are not so concerned with this one. They know God will resurrect them if they remain faithful.

Usually they carry a NO BLOOD card.
Witnesses have won many court battles respecting blood. So in your best interest, knowing the wishes of the patient it would be wise for you not to go against their wishes.

If a person has written instructions as to what is to be done in case they are unable to speak for themselves, as I and most other Jehovah's Witnesses do, then anyone going against this could be charged with assault in the U.S. I am not certain what the laws of other countries are about this, but it is certainly akin to rape to violate someones body against their will, even if you believe it is in their best interest.

As both the U.S. law (in general, states vary somewhat) and Western medical professional ethics demand, unconscious humans with no advocate to speak for them will get the care needed to save their lives unless some form of legal documentation is on their person *and* is binding in the relevant jurisdiction where they are being treated. This care will probably include resuscitation (CPR or breathing assistance), plasma or blood transfusions, and similar "drastic measures", if only because both the law and professional ethics consider death the ultimate "harm" (remember, the Hippocratic oath begins with the statement: "first of all, do no harm.")

That said, I think medical professionals are more likely to be *successfully* sued for withholding a treatment than giving one. I know of M.D.s who have been resuscitated even though they've gone to the expense, trouble, and discomfort of having the words "No Code" tattooed upon their sternums...and have then berated hospital staffers upon awakening after successful resuscitation.

Unfortunately, America as a society holds death in such irrationally fearful regard that medical malpractice suits and resulting hospital administrative policies insist on live-saving measures being provided despite patients' wishes unless a live human with their wits about them is present to document, waive any legal rebound to the hospital & staff, and generally insist.

Civil suits are possible in cases of unwanted live-saving measures...but then, civil suits are possible in cases of malicious tree-trimming.

In the case of, for example, a person whose roommate knows that they are Christian Scientist or Hasidic Jew or whatever, and then allows (or does not prevent) medicos to give an unwanted transfusion...legally, I doubt any police force or district attorney would press a charge. Period. Whereas I do think that if anyone prevented a blood transfusion and the party died or suffered irreparable harm as a result, criminal charges and possibly convictions are more likely than not.