Chelsea Deuel

Profesora Sipin
English 110C
04/27/15

When Does Religion in Healthcare Become Fatal for the Patient?

Most people have strong religious beliefs, specifically against emergency medical
intervention in healthcare. Emergency procedures such as surgical abortions and blood
transfusions, as well as clinical procedures like routine vaccinations for children are all
contraindicated by some religious practices. Although it seems in-humane to not give every
patient the same level of medical treatment, there are ethical standards that healthcare providers
must follow to honor human rights. In the same sense, there are conscientious objection laws for
healthcare providers that are just as detrimental to the patient. Conscientious objection in health
care cannot be framed solely as an issue of individual rights or beliefs because it always affects
someone elses health or access to care (The Hastings Center). It is ones right as a human to
refuse healthcare, but when does religious beliefs hinder the wellbeing of the patient? This
research paper is focused on answering this question and proving that quality of life trumps
religion through real life situation case study examples of a Jehovah Witness who refused a
massive blood transfusion, a critically ill pregnant women in need of an abortion to save her life,
and the effects that non-vaccinated children have on the rest of society. Realistically, ones quality
of life should be more important than a religious rule.

Deuel Page 1

The religion Jehovah Witness, carrying over 7.4 million of the worlds population, is
notoriously known in the medical world for refusing life saving blood transfusions.
Their decision is not related to perceived risks of transfusion but is a scriptural stand based on
biblical texts, such as the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whoever eat it shall be cut off
(Lev. 17:1016) (JPAC 12:2). In some instances such as scheduled surgeries like brain tumors,
internal fixation of bones, or open heart surgery, the Witness patient is notified of the risks and
complications of not receiving blood and signs a consent willingly declining the use of such
medical intervention. However, healthcare providers are challenged when a Witness patient
comes to the emergency room as a trauma, already intubated, and unable to give a direct consent
of their wishes. Another hard pill to swallow by physicians is when the decision to not give blood
is made by another family member when the patient is incapable of speaking for themselves.
This becomes a serious issue. Here is a case study example of a similar situation: In 2012 a
twenty seven year old pregnant women suffered from an ectopic pregnancy - a pregnancy
occurring outside the lining of the uterus, thus making it impossible for life to form adequately
and resulting in death of the fetus as well as possible complications including death to the
mother- after going to the hospital with abdominal pain. Both her and her husband were Jehovah
Witness and had previously signed a no blood transfusion advance directive. She needed surgery,
and blood. However, after a few days of being hospitalized, the women clearly stated to the
physicians that if she needed a blood transfusion she would except plasma and platelets
excluding whole red cell blood. Also, doctors used a system called cell savoring, which recycles
the patients blood that was lost in surgery but does not always create hemodynamic stability. At
this point, a blood transfusion was the only procedure that could save her. Unfortunately, since
she was intubated, her husband was her sole beneficiary in the act of deciding further medical
Deuel Page 2

treatment and denied the transfusion. Doctors believed that even though she had an advance
directive stating no transfusions, she clearly shared her wishes to doctors prior to being intubated
in that she would wish to receive platelets and plasma if need be. In this case, the spouse had full
reign over her well being and after refusing the transfusion of platelets and plasma during
surgery, she later died. He told her grieving family"At a time when she cannot make up her mind,
that is what it [the directive] is there for, (BBC NEWS 10/2012). Although her wishes were
platonically discussed about the possibility of receiving some blood parts except whole blood,
there was legal documentation preventing doctors from proceeding with the transfusion. There
will always be a question if she would have decided to chose life.
Choosing life may be a decision one has to make not only for themselves but for another
life, such as their fetus. Women have been dehumanized by a large portion of society because of
the right to terminate a pregnancy. Often, the termination of a pregnancy is done in mothers who
actually want children, but have some medical issue while carrying and have to have the
procedure done to sustain their own life. Unfortunately, many health care providers refuse care to
patients like this because of their religious take on abortion. Just as a women has a right to an
abortion, anyone has a right to refuse to participate in one. Refusal laws (sometimes called
conscience laws) permit a broad range of individuals and institutionsincluding hospitals,
hospital employees, health-care providers, employers, and insurersto refuse to provide, pay,
counsel, or even refer for medical treatment (Pro-choice america.org). The following is a case
study directly resulting in religious beliefs hindering patient care. A thirty one year old women in
Ireland was seventeen weeks pregnant when she began to experience severe back pain. After
being treated at the hospital for her symptoms, specialists notified her that she was having a

Deuel Page 3

miscarriage and has acquired an infection from her fetus, and there was no chance of life for her
fetus. However, Doctors refused to preform an abortion on this women until the heart beat
stopped in the fetus even though it was obviously killing her. The doctor said Its the law, this is
a Catholic country. She replied I am neither Catholic nor Irish (GAWKER Irish Times). The
heartbeat of the fetus ceased just a few days after admittance into the hospital and a surgical
abortion was finally preformed. Unfortunately, it was too late and her health suffered rapidly. Her
organs started to fail and the infection spread within her blood which killed her a few days later.
Its evident that this women could have lived if doctors were willing to remove the miscarried
fetus early, like she requested. When you think about it, what christian religion would chose for a
women to die before a non viable fetus? NONVIABLE. Cannot live. This creates suspicion that
personnel beliefs are pointing the blame towards religious practices.
Certain belief systems- personnel beliefs, not as much religions- believe that the human
body should be cured or healed by God or natural means (History of Vaccines). This is in
oppose to vaccinations. Also, the anti-vaccine-ers in this world, do not trust what is being
injected into their bodies to prevent the spread of diseases. Yes, everyone should have a right to
do what they wish with their own body. But what if it effects the publics health? There are rules
for entering certain countries, including America, that prevent unvaccinated people from
potentially spreading disease. Schools also require children to have certain vaccinations before
starting their first day, such as measles, mumps, and rubella (chicken pox). Parents who are
against immunizing their children often resort to homeschooling. This effects not only the health
of the impressionable children who cant make a decision to get a vaccine for themselves, but it
effects the public. A few examples: A major measles epidemic took place in Philadelphia due to
unvaccinated children whose families were part of churches that relied on prayer to heal instead
Deuel Page 4

of vaccines. An unvaccinated teenager from Illinois who was a student at a Christian community
and originality from Missouri, was the cause of several measles outbreaks in both states in 1994.
Another unvaccinated teenager contributed to a measles outbreak over an entire religious
community (who also apposed vaccinations) in Indiana, after retiring from an overseas trip.
Because of these outbreaks and the increasing number of religious vaccine exemptions, the
CDC and other medical and public health officials warn parents that unvaccinated children are at
a higher risk for acquiring vaccine preventable infections (History of Vaccines P5). Not
vaccinating your children puts the public in danger. Some believe that they should not suffer
because somebody else has a certain religious or personnel belief than them. However, these
people do have the ethical right to refuse to vaccinate their children as well as schools have the
right to refuse education to children whose parents wont get them vaccinated. Ethics and
understanding for both sides is very important in this situation.
To argue the inhumanity of religious beliefs causing detrimental effects on patients, ethics
has to be brought into consideration. Ethical Rights has been established to challenge people to
think more rationally about important ethical, human rights, scientific and related issues. More
people might then respect the rights of an individual and act in a more ethical manner, to make
the world a better place to live (Ethical Rights). Although refusing to receive or preform life
saving procedures due to a religious belief are in some minds considered in-humane acts, every
human has the right to chose life, no life, or refuse medical intervention for themselves or their
incapacitated beneficiary. There are some laws and loopholes. Child protection laws protecting
children of Jehovah witness patients to receive blood in traumatic instances, conscientious laws
protect healthcare providers who refuse to take part in surgical abortions, and some states

Deuel Page 5

participate in allowing families to send their children to school unvaccinated. Every physician
should offer the patient the best available therapy to his/her knowledge, and should treat the
patient with the solicitude and respect due all human beings (WMA Home Logo). This respect
includes compromise.
In conclusion, religious beliefs often hinder the quality of life of patients. Making
decisions for yourself is one side of the conflict, but when one is to make a medical life saving
decision for someone else is when it becomes controversial. These examples of case studies
involving Jehovah Witness patients refusing blood transfusions, healthcare providers refusing
surgical abortions to a dying mother, and parents refusing to get their kids vaccinated are real life
situations that are very alive today. Healthcare providers are still aloud to refuse care to patients
under consciences laws and patients are allowed to refuse healthcare under human and ethical
right laws. Unfortunately, the unvaccinated kids suffer from parental decisions as well as people
who interact with them if the child were to acquire a communicable disease. Even though it
would seem godly to save every one with every medical intervention possible as well as make
it a requirement for every child to be vaccinated, it is ones right as a human to treat his or her
body as they chose. This being said, diversity and opinion is widely ranged in this world, and to
strip someone of their religion is just as in-humane as religion can be to ones quality of life.

Bibliography

Deuel Page 6

1. Woman in Ireland Dies After Being Denied Abortion; Was Told

'This Is a Catholic Country'" Gawker. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.

2. E. Refusal Laws: Dangerous for Womens Health (n.d.): n. pag.

Web.
3. Cultural Perspectives on Vaccination." History of Vaccines
RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015
4. The Hastings Center and New York Immigration Coalition
Advise New York City Mayor on Improving Access to Health Care
for Undocumented Immigrants." The Hastings Center. N.p., n.d.
Web. 26 Apr. 2015.
5. Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?"
JW.ORG. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.
6. WMA Home Logo." WMA Statement on Ethical Issues
Concerning Patients with Mental Illness. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr.
2015.
7. WMA Home Logo." WMA Statement on Ethical Issues
Concerning Patients with Mental Illness. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr.
2015.

Deuel Page 7