Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND
OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING
CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS:
PREGNANT JWs &
JW CHILDREN OR "FETUSES"
PAGE 3
(9) [This paragraph applies only to pregnant women.] In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 860 (1992), the Supreme Court confirmed that “viability marks the earliest point at which the State’s interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on therapeutic abortions.” Thus, since I have the right to abort my pregnancy before viability I necessarily have the lesser right to refuse blood transfusions before viability. In addition, even if my fetus is viable, the Supreme Court has said that mothers cannot be exposed to increased medical risks for the sake of their fetuses and that the state’s interest in the potential life of the fetus is insufficient to override the mother’s interest in preserving her own health. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 768-71 (1986); see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992). Also, in the cases of In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235 (D.C. 1990), and In re Doe, 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1198 (1994), refusals of treatment by women with viable fetuses were upheld. Although both of these cases involved Caesarean sections, as a matter of principle and logic they show that it is the pregnant woman who should decide what is to be done to herself and her fetus. Therefore, I demand that my refusal of blood and choice of alternative nonblood management be followed and that my doctors manage my care and the care of my fetus without transfused blood.
****************** ******************
******************
HARRISON v. LOUISIANA PATIENTS COMPENSATION FUND ET AL was a 2002 Louisiana appellate court decision. This appeal was from a medical malpractice court case, in which a Jehovah's Witness named Ronald Harrison had been awarded more than $450,000.00 for the deaths of his wife and newborn child.
"As we view the evidence of record, there is no question but that Mrs. Harrison died due to a lack of blood, and this fact does not appear to have been put at issue; neither is there any question that both Mr. and Mrs. Harrison refused any blood replacement or transfusion. ...... ..."... the PCF is yet again attempting to wrest itself out of its statutorily imposed liability. At least insofar as the PCF is concerned, liability has been admitted, and the only contested issue is the amount of the victim's damages.
"In its judgment of October 17, 2001, the trial court found that the settling [doctor] was one hundred per cent at fault for Mrs. Harrison's death, stating that there was no secondary harm to consider. Under the facts and evidence presented, the secondary harm to which the judgment refers can only be "victim fault." It is clear from the record that the trial court had before it the issue and evidence of the various releases, and considered and rejected that defense by finding the health care provider completely at fault. Considering all the evidence in the records before us, we find no error in that determination."
******************
In June 1999, Anthony Peoples and Minnie Peoples, of Rock Hill, South Carolina, were told that their unborn son had a fatal birth defect, and would be stillborn. However, the Peoples family did not expect the delivery complications that required a blood transfusion to save Minnie's life. Minnie Peoples refused to consent to the blood transfusion. Tragically, that Jehovah's Witnesses family lost two family members in a matter of hours at Piedmont Medical Center: Minnie Peoples and her newborn son, Anthony Eugene Peoples Jr.
******************
IN RE FETUS BROWN v. DARLENE BROWN was a 1997 Illinois state appellate court decision. WatchTower attorney Donald T. Ridley represented Darlene Brown, while a separate Illinois attorney filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the WatchTower Bible & Tract Society.
In June 1996, then 26 years old Darlene Brown was approximately 35 weeks pregnant with her third child. Brown was admitted into Ingalls Memorial Hospital in Harvey, Illinois, to have a cystoscopy and then to remove a urethral mass. Brown did not discuss with Dr. Walsh that she was a Jehovah's Witness before the surgery. During the surgery, Brown lost approximately 700 cubic centimeters of blood, so Dr. Walsh ordered three units of blood for transfusion. Once the blood arrived in the operating room, Brown, who was fully conscious and alert during the procedure, refused the blood, explaining that she was a Jehovah's Witness. The doctors believed Brown was competent to refuse the blood and they completed the surgery using other techniques to control her bleeding. By the end of the surgery, Brown had lost almost 1,500 cubic centimeters of blood.
After the surgery, Brown had a hemoglobin level of 4.4 grams per deciliter (9 to 11 or 12 grams per deciliter would be normal for a woman at this stage of pregnancy). Dr. Walsh explained that Brown's low hemoglobin level and the abrupt change in that level posed a significant, life-threatening risk both to Brown and to the fetus (a/k/a her unborn baby). After consulting with Brown and her husband, Lester Brown, as well as physicians at other hospitals, Dr. Walsh attempted to use alternative medical procedures, compatible with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, to raise Brown's hemoglobin level. Unfortunately, Brown's hemoglobin level continued to drop. Dr. Walsh spoke with numerous hematologists and oncologists. Dr. Walsh also spoke with a renowned researcher about other possible treatments. At the time of the hearing, it was Dr. Walsh's medical opinion that if Darlene Brown did not have a blood transfusion, her chances of survival, as well as those of the fetus, were only 5%. On June 28, 1996, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship and a motion for temporary custody of Baby Doe, a fetus. A hearing was held the same day. Although Brown contends that she was never served, the Browns were represented by counsel at the hearing and Lester Brown was present. The court began by appointing the public guardian of Cook County, over his objection, to represent the fetus (Fetus Brown). Next, uncertain as to jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court Act, the court found it inappropriate to proceed under the State's petition for adjudication of wardship. Thus, invoking the court's equitable powers, the State filed a "Petition for Hearing on Whether a Temporary Custodian can be Appointed to Consent to a Medical Procedure: To Wit Blood Transfusion."
At the hearing, Dr. Walsh testified to the facts of Darlene Brown's condition as indicated above. Dr. Walsh also stated that, from the blood transfusion, Darlene Brown had a 1 in 1,000 risk of contracting hepatitis and a 1 in 5,000 or 10,000 risk of contracting HIV. Dr. Walsh explained that the blood transfusion was necessary, not to get blood to the fetus, but rather to get oxygen to the placenta via the mother's blood. Dr. Walsh explained that, while there were other methods of oxygenation, the problem was that the maternal blood was the only medium for transporting the oxygen to the placenta.
Kurt Johnson, the senior vice-president and chief operating officer of Ingalls Memorial Hospital, testified that he was prepared to accept temporary custody of the fetus in order to consent to the blood transfusion.
The parties stipulated that, if called to testify, Lester Brown would confirm that Darlene Brown understood the risks to herself and the fetus if she did not accept the blood transfusion. The parties further stipulated that Lester Brown supported Darlene Brown's decision not to accept the blood transfusion. At the time of the hearing, the Browns had been married for two years and both worked to take care of Darlene's eight-year-old and three-year-old daughters. The parties also stipulated that, if anything happened to Darlene Brown, Lester would continue to take care of the two surviving children and both Darlene's and Lester's parents would be available for care and support of the children. The Browns then rested.
The trial court granted the State's petition and appointed the hospital administrator as "temporary custodian of Fetus Brown, with the right to consent to one or more blood transfusions for Darlene Brown, when advised of such necessity by any attending physician."
Darlene Brown was transfused with six units of packed red blood cells beginning on the night of June 28 and continuing to approximately noon on June 29. Darlene Brown tried to prevent the administration of the transfusion; requiring the hospital to forcibly restrained and sedated her.
On July 1, 1996, Darlene Brown delivered a healthy baby, and both baby and mother were later discharged from the hospital.
On July 8, 1996, the court held a status hearing, and discovering that all had ended well, the court vacated the temporary custody order, dismissed the State's petition, and closed the case.
However, with the advice of the WatchTower Society Legal Department no doubt, Darlene and Lester Brown filed an appeal to challenge the previous circuit court's order appointing a temporary custodian for the fetus with the ability to consent, on Darlene Brown's behalf, to a blood transfusion for the viable fetus. They wanted to make sure that an unborn fetus never again interfered with WatchTower doctrine, at least in the state of Illinois.
This Illinois appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in appointing a temporary custodian for Fetus Brown, with the ability to consent on behalf of Darlene Brown to a blood transfusion for the viable fetus, stating in part:
"... While the factual issues are moot, the remaining legal issue satisfies the public policy exception to the Illinois mootness doctrine. ... The issue is a public one requiring authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officials, especially given the emergency and expedited nature of such proceedings.
...
"... on appeal, Darlene Brown challenges the propriety of the trial court's order appointing a temporary custodian to consent, on her behalf, to blood transfusions for the benefit of her viable fetus, Fetus Brown. Darlene Brown contends that, under federal and Illinois law, as a competent adult, she has an absolute right to refuse medical advice and treatment. In contrast, the State urges that its substantial interest in the viable fetus outweighs the minimal invasion presented by the blood transfusion. The public guardian also appeals, seeking guidance regarding its role as protector of fetal rights, ...
... ...
"... In Stallman, the court determined that a tort cause of action may not be maintained by a fetus against its mother for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries. ... In so deciding, the Stallman court reasoned that 'the law will not treat a fetus as an entity which is entirely separate from its mother. ... Moreover, the court stated that, in Illinois, a fetus cannot have rights superior to those of its mother. ... The court thus held that a pregnant woman owes no legally cognizable duty to her developing fetus. ...
"Following the reasoning of Stallman, the Baby Boy Doe court held that Illinois courts should not engage in a balancing of the maternal and fetal rights such that 'a woman's competent choice in refusing medical treatment as invasive as a cesarean section during her pregnancy must be honored, even in circumstances where the choice may be harmful to her fetus.' ... In reaching this decision, the Baby Boy Doe court applied the rationale of Stallman to determine: 'A woman's right to refuse invasive medical treatment, derived from her rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and religious liberty, is not diminished during pregnancy. The woman retains the same right to refuse invasive treatment, even of lifesaving or other beneficial nature, that she can exercise when she is not pregnant. The potential impact upon the fetus is not legally relevant; to the contrary, the Stallman court explicitly rejected the view that the woman's rights can be subordinated to fetal rights.'
"... the Baby Boy Doe court left open the question of whether blood transfusions, involving 'relatively noninvasive and risk-free' procedures, could permissibly be ordered in such a circumstance.
...
"... Darlene Brown urges that she holds an absolute right to refuse medical treatment grounded in Illinois common and statutory law, and based on the Illinois and United States Constitutions. Brown also argues that the Baby Boy Doe court's determination that blood transfusions are 'minimally invasive' is not a valid legal basis for divining when a patient's right to refuse treatment will be followed. Specifically, Brown argues that to qualify the patient's choice in refusing treatment undermines the patient's authority to make a competent treatment decision.
"Illinois recognizes a common law right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment. ... The right to refuse such treatment is based on the doctrine of informed consent, which requires physicians to obtain consent before performing any medical surgery or procedure upon a patient. ... The right to refuse treatment anticipates all forms of medical treatment, including life-saving and life-sustaining procedures ..., and includes the refusal of blood transfusions. ...
"The United States Supreme Court has stated that a person's interest in refusing medical treatment has constitutional underpinnings in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, ...(1990), the United States Supreme Court explained that a patient has a liberty interest in refusing medical treatment which must be balanced in a given case against the relevant State interests.
...
"The right to refuse medical treatment, however, is not absolute. ... The State may intervene in a given case if the State's interests outweigh the interests of the patient in refusing medical treatment. This is true whether the refusal is based on common law or constitutional principles. ...
"In this case, the circuit court considered the four state interests ... and determined: (1) the transfusion was necessary to preserve the life of Darlene and the fetus; ... (3) the State's interest in protecting third parties was strong because Darlene has two minor children, ages three and eight, who would be orphaned if she did not receive the transfusion; and (4) the transfusion procedure would be minimally invasive and could 'be administered without additional pain or intrusion because Darlene already had two intravenous sites.'
... ...
"... Lester Brown, the natural father of the three-year-old, supported Darlene's decision to refuse consent. While there is no evidence in the record regarding the eight-year-old's natural father, Lester Brown as well as his and Darlene's parents all were willing to help support both minor children. Thus, the State's interest in protecting the living minor children is not determinative. We therefore encounter the ultimate issue, the State's interest in protecting the viable fetus. In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court explained that the state maintains an 'important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... [and] the potentiality of human life.'...
... ...
"... while refusal to consent to a blood transfusion for an infant would constitute neglect ... without a determination by the Illinois legislature that a fetus is a minor for purposes of the Juvenile Court Act, we cannot separate the mother's valid treatment refusal from the potential adverse consequences to the viable fetus.
"Consequently, following the lead of Baby Boy Doe and Stallman, and in this case balancing the mother's right to refuse medical treatment against the State's substantial interest in the viable fetus, we hold that the State may not override a pregnant woman's competent treatment decision, including refusal of recommended invasive medical procedures, to potentially save the life of the viable fetus. We disagree with the Baby Boy Doe court's suggestion that a blood transfusion constitutes a 'relatively noninvasive and risk-free procedure' ..., and find that a blood transfusion is an invasive medical procedure that interrupts a competent adult's bodily integrity. We thus determine that the circuit court erred in ordering Brown to undergo the transfusion on behalf of the viable fetus.
... ..."Although the public guardian is correct that Baby Boy Doe held that the mother's rights and the fetus' rights may not be balanced, this case did not involve such a balancing. Instead, the issue as framed in this case involved the mother's right to refuse medical treatment as considered against the State's interest in the viable fetus. The asserted legal interests did not require the public guardian's representation of the separate, putative interests of the viable fetus. Thus, the circuit court erred in appointing the public guardian to represent the interests of the viable fetus in this case. In conclusion, the circuit court erred in appointing a temporary custodian for Fetus Brown with the authority to consent to blood transfusions for Darlene Brown and erred in appointing the public guardian as guardian ad litem for Fetus Brown."
******************
******************
Concerned with potential liability which might arise in the event Chandler or her unborn child were to die or suffer disability, particularly due to the marital estrangement, the Hospital filed a civil suit seeking a restraining order to force Chandler to consent to receive blood transfusions to keep her and the unborn child alive.
A Sacramento Superior Court judge granted the hospital's request. Noting that Chandler could legally refuse to accept blood transfusions if only her own life was at risk, the judge held that Chandler could not make that choice given that her decision also placed her unborn child ar risk.
Unknown if this decision was appealed. If not, the reason would be interesting, because an appellate court would have likely overruled this judge. Fetuses don't count, and Jehovah's Witnesses helped set that legal precedent.
Subsequently, on July 16, 1975, Bessie Randolph was admitted to Sydenham Hospital, located in New York County, as Dr. Cehelsky's private patient. In 1975 the City owned Sydenham and Health and Hospitals operated, maintained and controlled it. A notation appears in Sydenham's admission records that Mrs. Randolph was a Jehovah's Witness and did not wish to receive a blood transfusion.
Although specifics are unknown, Bessie Randolph did in fact experience a life-threatening amount of blood during the procedures, and the hospital and doctors did in fact honor Randolph's request that no blood transfusions be administered to save her life. Unfortunately, Randolph died as a result of blood loss.
Thereafter, Howard Randolph, as administrator of her estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against multiple parties. A NYC jury awarded the estate $1,250,000.00. NYC, the hospital, and the doctors all appealed given that Bessie Randolph had been forewarned of the possiblity that blood transfusions might be necessary to save her life, and with informed consent, she refused to give them that option. Outcome of appeal is unknown. What are hospitals and doctors to do? They get sued if they give the JW a transfusion. They get sued if they don't give the JW a transfusion.
******************
"If her life were the only one involved here, the court would not interfere. ... While I recognize that the fetus in this case is not yet viable, and that the state's interest in protecting its life would be less than 'compelling' in the context of the abortion cases, this is not such a case. In this case, the state has a highly significant interest in protecting the life of a mid-term fetus, which outweighs the patient's right to refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds. ... I considered the fetus as a potentially viable human being in a life-threatening situation to whom the court stands in parens patriae, and whom the court has an obligation to protect."
******************
"A hospital is not the patient's servant, subject to his orders. The hospital shares the physician's independence of judgment and responsibility for action, and to let a patient die runs counter to the reason for the hospital's existence."
******************
Jackson and her husband were Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the tenets of that faith is that a believer may not, under any circumstances, receive blood transfusions. Mercy's medical staff counselled Jackson that there was a 40% - 50% chance that she would need a transfusion. If that need developed, and if there were no transfusion, the doctors told her that they thought it likely she would die during a Caesarean delivery. Jackson and her husband maintained their refusal to consent. They requested that the Caesarean delivery proceed without blood transfusions.
Mercy may have been new to this issue, but the Jacksons were not. Besides the confrontation at the University of Maryland Hospital, this same controversy likely occurred during Jackson's first "unsuccessful pregnancy" [maybe there was plenty of controversy during that one also.] Additionally, Jackson's Jehovah's Witness mother had also wrestled with a hospital over the blood transfusion issue during a surgery.
Mercy Hospital made oral petition to the court for authority to transfuse Jackson if medically necessary. Counsel was appointed for Jackson and court was convened at her bedside. However, the court refused to grant the petition. The Hospital then agreed to perform the caesarian section, and agreed to allow Jackson to die rather than administer necessary transfusions. Fortunately, Jackson's blood loss was not severe, and no transfusion would have been necessary. Both Jackson and child survived.
Uniquely, this time, the hospital appealed, subject to dismissal due to the mootness question. The appellate court allowed the appeal on the "repetition" possibility. Mercy Hospital claimed that Jackson’s religious convictions were upheld to the detriment of the convictions of the hospital. Mercy Hospital is run by the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic religious order that "is dedicated to the preservation of life and family through the provision of medical services."
The judgment was affirmed; mainly because a transfusion would have only benefited Jackson, and would have been needed by her only after the baby was delivered. The child’s life was supposedly not in danger with or without the transfusion. Jackson's parental obligation to her newborn infant was given little consideration. Mercy attempted twice more to be heard on this case, but neither appeal was fully considered due to "mootness". Interestingly, in one of those failed attempts by Mercy Hospital, Ernestine Jackson was represented by the ACLU.
"... physicians opinion that woman with placenta previa would need blood transfusion for Caesarian section proved erroneous when placenta shifted baby was delivered vaginally without use of blood.'"
The WatchTower Society's characterization of what happened in this case is misleading. In this case, a Jehovah's Witness female, named Jessie Mae Jefferson, had apparently been admitted at the County Hospital on one or more occasions due to pregnancy complications. The baby was due on or about Monday, January 26. Jefferson had placenta previa, and the doctors were recommending that Jefferson deliver the baby via caesarean section, which would also require the administering of a blood transfusion. Jefferson told the County Hospital that she would not consent to the caesarean section and accompanying blood transfusion, because she was a Jehovah's Witness.
However, in the Hospital's best professional opinion, delivery via caesarean section was medically necessary to protect the lives of both the mother and the child. On January 22, the County Hospital petitioned the Superior Court for an order authorizing it to perform a caesarean section and any necessary blood transfusions in the event Jefferson presented herself to the hospital for delivery of her unborn child. The Hospital's petition was granted. However, later on that week, when time came for Jessie Jefferson to deliver her baby, she did not go back to the County Hospital. Fortunately, she delivered the baby successfully without having a caesarean section.
I do not have this court decision, so many details are missing. However, the available details raise several questions: Did Jefferson even deliver the baby at a hospital? If so, since Jefferson had been seeking medical care at the County facility, who paid the expenses at the hospital that did the delivery? If delivered at a hospital, what were the circumstances that they did not do a caesarean section? Did the child have any lingering after effects?
Interestingly, the Superior Court's decision was thereafter appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. Who paid the legal expenses, and why? Was someone ignorant enough to think that simply because Jefferson and her child had "dodged a bullet", an appellate court would overrule the lower court's decision, which had agreed with the County Hospital that delivery via caesarean section was the safest delivery method for both mother and child?
In any event, despite the WatchTower Society Legal Department's citing this case as an example of "doctors being wrong on blood transfusions", other courts have cited this state Supreme Court case as precedent for compelling pregnant mothers to undergo standard medical procedures which benefit the unborn child, although such procedure violates the mother's religious beliefs. The Georgia Supreme Court stated in part:
"... the intrusion involved into the life of Jessie Mae Jefferson and her husband ... is outweighed by the duty of the State to protect a living, unborn human being from meeting his or her death before being given the opportunity to live. ... Because the life of defendant and of the unborn child are, at the moment, inseparable, the Court deems it appropriate to infringe upon the wishes of the mother to the extent it is necessary to give the child an opportunity to live. ... ... as a matter of law ... this child is a viable human being and entitled to the protection of the Juvenile Court Code of Georgia. ... ... all medical procedures deemed necessary by the attending physician [should be administered] to preserve the life of the unborn child."
******************
In September 1979, the WatchTower Society lost one of its rare celebrities to its own blood transfusion prohibition. Eleanor Wilkerson Maurer, daughter of retired Rear Admiral Robert H. Wilkinson, died at a Falmouth, Massachusetts hospital, after she refused to consent to a blood transfusion made necessary by excessive blood loss during childbirth. Newborn daughter, Caroline Maurer, was left to be reared by her father, John Maurer, 30, a maintenance man.
******************
In the late 1970s, a pregnant Jehovah's Witness being treated at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco refused to consent to a blood transfusion which the hospital wanted to administer to her unborn fetus. The fetus died while doctors and attorneys were debating all the legalities involved in pursuing court intervention in such a scenario.
******************
IN RE ANDREA DANIELS was a 1978 Pennsylvania court decision. In June 1978, a Jehovah's Witness named Andrea Daniels, 34, gave birth to her 7th child at Crozer-Chester Medical Center via caesarian. (See 1973 Martina Wilson case below.) The caesarian delivery was unplanned. When complications arose during normal delivery, doctors had to perform the caesarian. Excessive blood loss made a blood transfusion absolutely necessary in order to try to save Daniels' life. Although Daniels was under anesthesia, she had signed all the legal paperwork required to avoid any transfusions. Her husband, Alvin Daniels, 33, was standing there, and he remained resolute - "No Transfusion".
The hospital sought court intervention given the circumstances of this case - a mother of SEVEN. The court agreed. The interests of those children and the state to see after their welfare outweighed Daniels right to her religious belief to choose certain death.
Alvin Daniels was outraged. He maintained that administering a transfusions would not guarantee that she would live. He was correct. But a chance at life beats a certainty of death. At last report, Andrea was in serious, but improving condition. The husband, Alvin Daniels, later told reporters that "MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED". Alvin also told reporters that giving his wife a blood transfusion was "the same thing as asking her to put a spoon into a bowl of blood. Its like eating blood."
******************
In Septmber 1977, an unidentified U. S. Marine sought and obtained court intervention to force his 8-months-pregnant wife, "who was under the influence of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses" in Beaumont, South Carolina, to accept a needed blood transfusion prior to the delivery of their unborn daughter via a planned caesarian delivery. The wife was near death even prior to delivery, and without the transfusion, neither she nor the unborn child would survive. The Overseer of that local JW congregation testified on the wife's behalf that death was preferred to the transfusion.
******************
BROWARD MEDICAL CENTER v. LINDA OKONEWSKI was a 1977 Florida court decision. Limited details. Linda Okonewski was a twenty-one year old pregnant Jehovah’s Witness. During the pregnancy, Rh factor issues between mother and child were discovered. Okonewski's obstetrician informed her that for her own safety, and the safety of the baby, that she should deliver via Caesarean section, which could possibly require a blood transfusion, if there was excessive blood loss. Okonewski informed the obstetrician and pediatrician that she would not consent to any blood transfusions for herself or her baby due to her WatchTower beliefs.
Again, details are limited, but the Caesarean was apparently scheduled for September 1. However, Okonewski was a "no-show". The obstetrician had sought a court order to administer a transfusion if such became necessary during surgery. Also, the pediatrician of the unborn infant had sought a second court order in case an exchange transfusion was necessary for the infant due to existent RH problems. After a court hearing, both petitions were granted. Apparently, after learning about such, Okonewski fled the West Palm Beach area. At some point, the judge who issued the two court orders modified such so as to authorize all physicians and hospitals in the state of Florida to do the same in case Okonewski came to them. A summary of these terms was delivered to all medical facilities throughout the state by the various sheriffs in each locale.
However, Okonewski did not stay in Florida. She and her husband flew to Southern California, where Dr. Elliott Zaleznik was willing to both perform the Caesarean and agree that no blood transfusions would be given to Okonewski or her baby, even if such meant their deaths. Okonewski's interstate flight was reported by AP and published in newspapers throughout the United States. Thus, when she was admitted to a hospital in California, the Florida court was notified. The Florida court order was extended to the hospital in California, and a California judge announced that he intended to enforce the extended jurisdiction. When Mrs. Okonewski fled that California hospital, the order was extended to all California hospitals. She then checked back into the California hospital and had the baby by Caesarean section on September 6. Fortunately, no blood transfusion was needed during the Caesarean. The baby also did fine without an exchange or regular transfusion.
The question that was never addressed in this drama was who, on extremely short notice, arranged and financed the interstate flight and the doctor who agreed to allow her and the baby to die if necessary, etc. HMMMMM!!!!
"Upon arrival at the age of reason, this person to be may well accept or reject, in whole or part, the faith of his parents but must have that choice. So long as this society and its system of jurisprudence recognize the right of the individual to maintain his life and health inviolate from legal wrong by others, the state must act for those lacking physical capacity, and more importantly, [lacking] legal capacity, to act for themselves."
'We have no difficulty in so deciding with respect to the infant child. The more difficult question is whether an adult may be compelled to submit to such medical procedures when necessary to save his life. Here we think it is unnecessary to decide that question in broad terms because the welfare of the child and the mother are so intertwined and inseparable that it would be impracticable to attempt to distinguish between them with respect to the sundry factual patterns which may develop. The blood transfusions (including transfusions made necessary by the delivery) may be administered if necessary to save her life or the life of her child, as the physician in charge at the time may determine.'
******************
HOENER v. BERTINATO was a 1961 New Jersey court decision. Louis and Gloria Bertinato were expecting their fourth child. Gloria Bertinato had a blood condition known as RH negative. This case was initiated by the state child welfare department on behalf of the yet unborn child based on the state's prior experiences with the Bertinatos. The Bertinatos' second child had needed a blood transfusion soon after birth, but citing their Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs the Bertinatos refused to consent. The state sought and was granted temporary custody and authorization to consent to medically required blood transfusions. The Bertinatos then had a third child, which also needed a transfusion, but that child died before legal action could be taken. Thus, the state decided not to wait until the fourth child was born before pursuing legal action. Two physicians, the Bertinatos' obstetrician and pediatrician, both testified at the hearing and established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, as a result of this blood condition of the mother, unless a blood transfusion was given the child soon after birth, the child would die, or even if there were the remote possibility of its surviving, it would be born physically or mentally deformed for life. They planned to induce early labor and perform the transfusion to reduce the severity of the baby’s blood condition at birth. The Bertinatos' sole objection was intrusion on their religious freedom. The trial court granted the state's petition noting that waiting until the child was born was not practical or sensible given the circumstances.
******************
IN RE DANNY JOE SMOCK was a 1960 Indiana court decision. Prior to the delivery of Danny Smock, in January 1960, at Indianapolis' Methodist Hospital, Mr/Mrs Richard Smock, of Clayton, Indiana, were informed that their Rh factor incompatibility would likely required that their newborn receive an exchange transfusion. As Jehovah's Witnesses, they refused to consent. However, their doctors obtained court-authorization well in advance of the delivery, and three days after he was born, Danny received the life-saving transfusion. Everyone was happy. The Smocks had fulfilled their WatchTower obligation to resist, and their child lived.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA ARMSTRONG was a 1958 California court decision. In April 1958, Patricia Armstrong, a 19 year-old expectant mother, who already had one child, was operated on for a ruptured spleen at Downey Community Hospital. The surgery had to be performed without benefit of a blood transfusion due to the refusal of Patricia and her husband, Robert Armstrong, 20. Two days after the surgery, Patricia was in danger of dying from a severely low blood count. However, she and her husband, supported by his mother, two brothers, and Overseers from their Jehovah's Witness congregation, refused to consent to the life-saving transfusions.
At that point, Patricia Armstrong's own mother, Mrs. Michael Biggers of El Cajon, who was NOT a JW, had had enough and hired attorneys to petition a local court for authorization to administer life-saving blood transfusions to her daughter over the objections of the Jehovah's Witness In-laws.
A local Los Angeles Judge rushed to the hospital and conducted an emergency hearing in which Armstrong was declared a ward of the court. Life-saving transfusions were ordered barely in time. The judge based his decision on concern for the unborn child. Reading from an affadavit submitted by one of Armstrong's doctors, the judge quoted: "Failure to accept the blood transfusion will result in severe abnormality to the unborn child and possibly affect the lives of both mother and child."
While his pregnant wife laid in intensive care, listed in critical condition, pipefitter Robert Armstrong sobbed to reporters that the Judge had violated his wife's religious beliefs. Robert's mother, Elsie Finley, told reporters, "We're just trying to help our daughter. Pat didn't want a transfusion."
******************
RECOMMENDED READING:
Blood Transfusions: A History and Evaluation of the Religious, Biblical, and Medical Objections (Jehovah's Witnesses perspective)
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Illness
<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>
BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: PREGNANT JWs - JW "FETUSES" - PAGE 3
bravenet.com