Healthcare professionals are often faced with ethical dilemmas as well as questions and if they are inadequately solved, they could jeopardize the quality of health care, professional action or user autonomy (Purtilo & Doherty, 2015). As such, bioethical concerns should be effectively addressed to foster quality healthcare, professional action as well as user autonomy. The refusal of blood transfusions among individuals who practice the Jehovah witness faith is one of the major ethical dilemmas witnessed in healthcare. Inherently, members of the Jehovah witness do not accept blood transfusions based on their religious doctrines (Pozgar, 2014).
Essentially, the beliefs of the Jehovah witness are guided by the biblical interpretation that dictates that “Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eats it shall be cut off” (Leviticus. 17:14 KJV). Thus, the members of the Jehovah witness believe that receiving a blood transfusion would be a transgression and would deter them from entering GOD’s kingdom after they die. Therefore, it is unacceptable for a member of the Jehovah witness to accept a blood transfusion under whatever circumstance. According to law and ethics, every individual has an inherent right to reject any form of treatment even if their choice is inconsistent with the medical judgement or appropriate clinical practice (West, 2014). In the light of this, the right to refuse treatment may be exercised by the patient, or patients surrogate. However, the patient’s decision takes precedence and thus the surrogate’s decision cannot supersede that of the patient. Although, the patient’s husband agrees to blood transfusion in order to save her wife’s life, the care team should respect the patient’s decision since she is the primary decision maker. In addition, the ethical principle that relates to informed consent promote the autonomy principle as well as the respect for an individual. This principle states that every individual has an inherent right to decide whatever should be done with their body. Hence, the care team should not administer a blood transfusion without the patients consent. Furthermore, patients have a preference right in relation to what should be done to their body. Thus, healthcare workers should not instill their own beliefs, preferences or values to the patients (Purtilo & Doherty, 2015).
One the other hand, healthcare professionals have the responsibility to optimal care to patients and avoid non-maleficence. In addition, healthcare workers should ensure that type of care provided is beneficial to patients and prevent any potential adverse outcome (Pozgar, 2014). In relation to the aforementioned scenario, the healthcare professionals should transfuse the patient based on the medical ethics. Based on the medical ethics, medical professionals should provide beneficence care to patients in life threatening conditions. Moreover, the patient is unconscious and thus she is incompetent in regard to a sound decision pertaining to treatment. For example, the patient might change her mind if she knew that her decision may result to death and apparently she is incapable of making an informed decision based on the current health status. Thus, the care team should use brilliant communication skills to educate the patient’s husband on the health benefits of a transfusion in order to allow husband to make an informed decision that promotes the patient’s wellbeing.
Furthermore, the members of the care team should consult the legal department such as the hospital attorney in order to be granted legal immunity in respect to the transfusing the patient. Additionally, UHCDA (Uniform Health care Decisions Act) provides legal immunity to healthcare workers in instances such as the aforementioned ethical dilemma. According to the act, healthcare workers should make their decisions based on the ethical grounds (West, 2014). Hence, they should provide the relevant care that prevents adverse outcomes and promotes the wellbeing of the patient. Furthermore, the act states that the decision made by the surrogate should be in the best interest of the patient (Naunheim et al., 2015). Realistically, the decision made by the patient’s husband to have her transfused is in the best interest of the patients as well as the family. For instance, the baby requires nurturing as well as the support of both parents and if Mrs. K does not receive a transfusion she might die and thus compromise the wellbeing of the baby. Therefore, is crucial for the patient to receive a transfusion for her own benefit and the benefit of the entire family. Thus, the care team should clearly inform the husband on the available treatment options as well as the ramifications (Corey et al., 2014). If a patient is deemed incompetent in regard to making an appropriate decision, healthcare workers have the responsibility to consult the surrogate and allow them to make decisions on behalf of the patient. Thus, the care team should allow the patient’s husband to make the appropriate decision that would allow them to transfuse the patient.
Overall, the main ethical values usually referred to situations such as the aforementioned ethical dilemma include; beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, dignity, as well as fair and just treatment. Thus, patients as well as the patient’s family should be clearly informed on the available treatment options as well as the ramifications (Naunheim et al., 2015). However, in most instances it is quite difficult to fulfil the aforementioned ethical values. On the one hand, administering a blood transfusion to the patient fulfils the ethical value relating to beneficence while on the other hand this violates the ethical value relating to autonomy. However, I believe that the decision made by the patient’s husband to have her transfused satisfies both the legal and ethical definition of good clinical care and hence satisfies the autonomy ethical value. Hence, I believe that transfusing Mrs. K is correct as well as justifiable. However, the members of the care team should consult the hospitals legal unit so that they can be advised on the legal requirements involved in such instances.
References
Bible, B. (2015). The Holy Bible The Authorized King James Version. Century Publishing.
Corey, G., Corey, M., Corey, C., & Callanan, P. (2014). Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions with 2014 ACA Codes. Nelson Education.
Naunheim, K. S., Bridges, C. R., & Sade, R. M. (2015). Should a Jehovah’s Witness Patient Who Faces Imminent Exsanguination Be Transfused?. The Ethics of Surgery: Conflicts and Controversies, 107.
Pozgar, G. D. (2014). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Purtilo, R. B., & Doherty, R. F. (2015). Ethical dimensions in the health professions. Elsevier Health Sciences.
West, J. M. (2014). Ethical issues in the care of Jehovah's Witnesses.Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 27(2), 170-176.
