Selective religious beliefs often dissent against providing patients standard medical care. Whether it is abortion, euthanasia, or blood transfusions, the dilemma of accepting or refusing patients’ decisions that contravene with physicians’ preferred treatment is challenging.
A case commonly encountered in the medical field are the medical ethics accompanying Jehovah’s Witnesses requiring blood transfusions. Blood transfusions are prohibited by Jehovah’s Witnesses essentially due to their belief that the bible prohibits blood ingestion. Blood transfusions are delivered for many dire reasons that include low haemoglobin (Hb) or blood cell levels, anaemia brought by the extreme loss of blood, or due to specific cancers (impacting) organs that regulate blood cell levels like the kidneys, blood marrow, and spleen.
…show more content…
The doctor should initially discuss the preferential method of treatment with Mr. George. It is the physician’s obligation to ensure that the patient fully comprehends his medical condition and the consequences bearing his decision. This goes to the basis for the concept of informed consent. If Mr. George still refuses blood transfusions, the doctor is compelled to consider alternative treatments. It is the patient’s right to refuse a course of medical treatment, and a physician’s obligation to respect patients’ autonomy that arise with their religion albeit believing that the decision might antagonise the patient’s current physical wellbeing. There are no objections from Jehovah’s Witnesses to alternatives that focus on inducing the production of the specific blood cells; despite the conditional efficacy of these treatments. They include: Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs), used to stimulate the process of red blood cells formation in red bone marrow, as are pharmacological agents such as intravenous iron or tranexamic