We had a very interesting talk from some Jehovah’s Witnesses today as part of a health competency lecture series. For anyone not acquainted with Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are best known to the medical community for their refusal of any form of blood transplants. They outlined the biblical basis for their belief today (IV blood transfusions are deemed equivalent to “eating blood”, which is expressely forbidden in their version of the Bible), as well as the nuts and bolts of how this particular belief interfaces with modern medicine.

Interestingly enough, the ban against blood transfusions doesn’t seem to be that big of a problem, in terms of treatment. I spent all afternoon researching it*, and while obviously more expensive, an entire cottage industry has sprung up around treating Witnesses with “Bloodless Medicine”. This has even led to the development of blood substitutes that, though currently in their infancy, may one day help with nationwide shortages of blood.

Most Witnesses carry around a card that identifies themselves as such, and expressly grants the physician legal immunity in the event of their death secondary to blood loss. This is kind of a nice touch; though I may not agree with what they believe, if giving them a transfusion breaks their pact with God, who am I to force it upon them? I know I’d still have problems letting a patient die, but at least it would be on their terms.

I do, however, find myself troubled by one major aspect of Witness-dom… and that is the issue of pediatric care. I don’t think that children should be subjected to the religious beliefs of their parents if it may cause them harm. Turns out this was established as legal precident in Prince v. Massachussetts (1944), in which a Jehovah’s Witness was found guilty of breaking child labor laws. She was accused of forcing her child to distribute church pamphlets door-to-door (what Witnesses are best known for outside of the medical community).

Now, I am not a huge proponent of the culture of life. I believe that abortion should be legal, and I don’t think that Terry Schaivo should have been kept “alive” even though half of her brain had atrophied to mush. But I strongly feel that if a child is brought in by ambulance to an ER after major trauma, they have a right to all the blood transfusions necessary to keep them alive - no matter what their parents believe.

Unfortunately, the Witnesses did not agree. They offered to take “all legal responsibility” for the death of the child, just as they do for themselves. That does not sit well with me. As far as I’m concerned, letting a kid die on the table when you could have helped them is murder… and damned** if I’m going to be a murderer because someone else thinks blood is a bad thing. Even if the law would be on my side if I let it happen.

Anyhow, I suppose this is all very intolerant of me. But I also know I couldn’t live with myself if that child’s death was on my hands.

*I do not have time for this!
**literally!