Blood Transfusion Question for Canadian laywers, please ?

OK,

So here is the scenario.

A nine year old child has met with a serious accident away from home. The paramedic on scene stabilizes his condition and the boy ends up in the Emergency Room of a major Toronto hospital. He is UNCONSCIOUS.

It is decided that the boy needs immediate blood transfusion. Now, for some reason the parents could not be contacted regarding the whole incident, and instead of wasting another minute waiting for them to be contacted, the doctor in charge proceeds with the blood transfusion.

Finally, when the parents arrive, it turns out that they are Jehovah's Witnesses and are furious about the blood transfusion.

Now, my question is, can the doctor be sued by the parents regarding the handling of this case ?

The doctor's position on the whole matter is that since the right to life is fundamental, and the boy was in no position to accept / refuse treatment, as a doctor, it was his solemn duty to save a life.

Your thoughts on this please ?

Thank you

God Bless

Thank you very much everybody who answered.

Frankly speaking, each one of you deserves 10 points.

To this end, I am putting the question to vote.

God Bless you all

No, the Doctor cannot be successfully sued.

Where a patient is unable to give 'informed consent' and a next of kin is unavailable, a Doctor has a legal obligation to exercise his best medical judgment.

Even had the child been conscious, the Doctor could still have proceeded with a transfusion over his objections because a nine year old child is not legally competent to give - or withhold - informed consent.

In Canada, like most countries, if the parents had been present and refused a blood transfusion, the Doctor could have requested an emergency court order to override them and save the child's life.

Richard

The doctor is responsible to preserve life. The doctor would have been held accountable if the child did not recieve the blood transfusion and died.
Since the doctor was not aware of the parents religous preference he should not be held liable.

I'm not a lawyer, but worked for the health region for years.

Jehovah's Witnesses usually lose these suits, in Canada at least.

The parents have no grounds to sue, since the standard of care is to do whatever is medically necessary and possible to stabilize or save the patient. When a patient needs an immediate blood transfusion, you give them an immediate blood transfusion. Here, these cases are basically decided in favour of whichever decision saves or prolongs life, which in this scenario is the doctor's.

I can only answer for the uk.

The answer here is that any attempt to sue would be unsuccesful. The doctor acted in the patients best interest and had no way of obtaining consent