BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS- PAGE 2 of 2

APPLICATION OF WINTHROP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL was a 1985 New York court decision. Limited details. A Jehovah's Witness named Susan Hess was admitted to Winthrop University Hospital due to a severe case of kidney stones only one month after delivering her second child. Blood transfusions are rarely needed during the kidney stone surgery she was to have, but the surgeon refused to operate without authorization, in case blood was needed in an emergency situation. Hess and her husband refused to authorize a transfusion on religious grounds.

The Hospital then petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to administer a blood transfusion if such became medically required to save her life. After taking testimony from Hess and her husband, the court granted the petition. This seems to be another case where the judge came to the realization that the Jehovah's Witness would accept a blood transfusion if such were court ordered. Note pertinent verbiage in this decision:

"Respondent is married, the mother of two young children, one being only one month old. She is currently hospitalized for kidney stones requiring surgical removal. Neither she nor her husband object to the surgery but refuse to permit any blood transfusion on religious grounds. She is competent.

"While transfusions are rare in the proposed surgery, the surgeon refuses to operate without authorization. Therefore, without Court ordered authorization no surgery will be performed and her life is threatened, unless she finds another surgeon, which she is, of course, free to do. But while she remains under the care of her present surgeon and hospital, the issue remains.

"Courts are generally without power to order compulsory medical treatment over a competent adult patient's objection. ... However, whether a competent adult patient's religious right must yield to the State's interest in acting as parens patriae by ordering compulsory medical treatment to save the life of the mother of infants, has not been reported in this State.

"In Powell v. Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, ... (1965), emergency blood transfusions were ordered for a mother of six children who refused to authorize same on religious grounds. But that decision was based upon a finding that the patient would accept the transfusions if Court ordered rather than the State act as parens patriae."

******************

IN THE MATTER OF FUENTES was a 1983 Maryland court decision. While most courts have refused to grant court-ordered blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses mothers whose baby is not itself endangered, this judge did grant such. Interestingly, the judge did so after the Jehovah's Witness husband, who reportedly worked for a "family services" governmental agency, stated that if a transfusion was ordered, he would not challenge the judge's decision. Frank Fuentes Jr., who also just happened to be an Elder of the JWs, was supported by his fellow JW Elders at the Gaitherburg Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In August 1983, Marsha Ellen Fuentes, 28, was near death at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital due to blood loss after childbirth. Although both Frank Fuentes and Marsha Fuentes had refused to give consent to a blood transfusion, they apparently were appreciative of the fact that the hospital sought a court-ordered blood transfusion. Judge John F. McAuliffe, awakened by hospital officials at his home in the early A.M. hours, rushed to the hospital to hold an emergency hearing. The hospital's petition was granted after Frank Fuentes Jr. gave the judge his promise not to contest the decision.

For whatever reasons, this Judge seemed to have a sixth sense as to exactly how to save this JW's life, and do so without violating the JW's WatchTower beliefs. He stuck around and made sure no transfusions were administered until there was no question but that Fuentes would die without one. He and the hospital kept it quiet as to how many transfusions were actually administered after the hysterectomy (two or more). The Judge also agreed that the state had a compelling interest in saving the life of a young mother now with her fifth child under the age of nine. Then, once the emergency was past, the Judge terminated the order. More JWs need to understand that there is more than one way to skin a chicken, or, let someone else be the WatchTower Martyr.

******************

IN RE DAVIS was a 1982 Illinois court decision. An Akron, Ohio Jehovah's Witness couple named Joseph Davis and Elaina Davis were involved in an automobile accident in the Chicago area. The JW wife/mother was killed, and Joseph Davis, 42, had his left leg so severely injured that it required amputation. Davis lost approximately 80% of his blood in the accident, but as a Jehovah's Witness, he refused any blood transfusions at the hospital. However, the Hospital applied to a local judge for permission to adminster necessary blood transfusions in order to save Davis' life. Judge Walter P. Dahl of Cook County Circuit Court ruled that since Davis was now the sole provider for five of his six children, 2, 4, 10, 16 and 17 years old, that the children of Joseph Davis had a greater right to have their father live than Davis had to refuse the blood. The administering of the emergency blood transfusions kept Davis alive long enough for later transfusions to consist of blood substitutes which were acceptable to Davis.

******************

IN RE CAINE was a pre-1985 court decision, during which a 35 year-old Jehovah's Witness Father of three was court-ordered to receive a blood transfusion due to his parental repsonsibilities outweighing his desire to commit "backdoor suicide".

******************

In August 1979, in Bloomington, Illinois, after 32 hours of labor, doctors performed a caesarean section on a Jehovah's Witness named Janice Sue Malcome, who was 39 years-old, and weighed 290 lbs. Blood clotting in her lungs further forced doctors to give her blood thinners. Due to excessive blood loss, doctors told Janice Sue Malcome that she would need a blood transfusion or she would die. While husband, Richard Malcome, counseled his wife against consenting to a transfusion, Janice Malcome's non-JW mother and sister did everything they could to convince her to consent. They finally won Janice over, but the argument had taken too long. Janice died two hours after receiving the transfusion.Richard Malcome was left alone to rear his new infant daughter, Melissa Renee Malcome, and her four siblings.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF MITCHELL was a 1978 Virginia court decision. In October 1978, Brenda Mitchell, 24, a Jehovah's Witness, gave birth to a daughter, but hemorhaged and lost an excessive amount of blood. When informed that a blood transfusion might be necessary to save her life, Mitchell refused to consent because of Bible passages she believed prohibit her from receiving blood. A Richmond hospital petitioned four different courts for authorization to administer a transfusion, but all four refused the petition. Those judges obviously gave no weight to the parental obligations that Brenda Mitchell owed to her newborn daughter. Fortunately, Mitchell recovered without receiving a transfusion.

******************

In March 1977, Luz Santana, 26, of Lorain, Ohio, died of massive blood loss at Elyria Memorial Hospital less than two hours after delivering Sandra Santana, via caesarian, one month early. Luz Santana was fully supported in her decision not to consent to a blood transfusion by her husband, Miguel Santana, who was a local JW Elder. In a telephone interview, Santana's JW sister in Puerto Rico, Wilfredo Rodriguez, stated to a reporter, "In the Bible, it is very clear that someone's blood isn't pure and harm would come upon the persons who took the blood."

******************

IN THE MATTER OF SUSAN FRYE was a 1977 Pennsylvania court appellate court decision. In June 1977, a Jehovah's Witness, named Susan Frye, 24, was admitted to Pittsburgh's Montefiore Hospital suffering severe blood loss from a bleeding lesion. His wife having refused the blood transfusions needed to preserve her life, Trevor Frye, who was NOT a JW, petitioned a local Judge for authorization to save the life of his wife and mother of his two young children. Judge John Flaherty refused. Trevor Frye then petitioned Judge Cercone, who decided that the state had an interest in preserving the life of a parent of two young children. Any necessary transfusions were court authorized.

******************

IN RE HAMRICK was a 1977 Washington state decision, and a somewhat puzzling situation. In March 1977, Deborah Hamrick, 17, wife of Randy Hamrick, was involved in an automobile accident in which she and her 3 month-old daughter, Phadra Hamrick, were both seriously injured, and 18 month old Randy Hamrick, Jr. was only slightly injured. At Centralia General Hospital, a blood transfusion was started upon Deborah Hamrick as soon as she arrived due to massive hemmoraging from a ruptured spleen.

However, when Hamrick's Jehovah's Witness family members arrived, and saw that she was receiving a blood transfusion, they stopped such. Apparently, doctors revived Deborah Hamrick, and when asked her desires in front of her family, she rejected any further blood transfusions. Doctors at Centralia General Hospital told Hamrick that she would certainly die if she did not allow them to operate using blood transfusions, but that with such, she had a 80% chance of survival. She and the family decided to transfer to a Seattle hospital that they thought could operate without blood. Centralia prepped Hamrick for the transfer, using blood substitutes, but she died from massive blood loss during the transfer.

Phadra Hamrick also needed a blood transfusion, so the hospital sought and obtained court authorization for such, and she recovered - though, without a mother. Randy Hamrick, Jr. was also treated and released.

Several interesting comments resulted from this scenario from both involved doctors, and the local Jehovah's Witnesses. Dr. Larry Nelson told a reporter that WatchTower teachings regarding blood transfusions "were a form of human sacrifice", and that JWs who died obeying WatchTower rules were committing "suicide".

When asked to respond, local JW Elder and genius, Wayne Rees, dodged the issue by stating, "Can you think of anything closer to suicide than overeating?" Responding to Nelson's remark that JWs were "incompetent" to make the decision to refuse blood transfusions in the multitude of varying life-n-death scenarios that arise, Rees stated that no other group than doctors knew more about blood transfusions than Jehovah's Witnesses. Rees also went into great details misquoting Bible verses in an attempt to equate a blood transfusion with the "eating of animal blood". Wayne Rees further stated:

"The Bible says the soul of the body is in the blood. ... Most any doctor will admit that blood is an organ ... . A blood transfusion is actually an organ transplant. Yet, most people have the right to reject an organ transplant." [At that time, the WatchTower Society forbid organ transplants. Today, they allow such.]

******************

HAMILTON v. MCAULIFFE was a 1976 Maryland appellate court decision. Hubert Hamilton, a 35 year old Jehovah's Witness, was gunshot in his chest. Physicians determined that Hamilton could not survive without immediate surgery and a blood transfusion. Hubert Hamilton consented to the surgery, but refused to authorize a blood transfusion, even though he was informed by his physicians that he would die if surgery was undertaken and a blood transfusion was not given in the course of the surgery.

Hubert Hamilton's wife and two brothers filed a petition in a local court seeking authority for the physicians to proceed with the transfusion, notwithstanding Hamilton's refusal to consent. The court appointed counsel to represent Hamilton and an emergency hearing was held in the hospital on December 12, 1973, at which Judge John F. McAuliffe presided. The judge was convinced that Hamilton fully understood the ramifications of his decision not to consent to the blood transfusion. However, although Hamilton was separated from his wife, they had a two-year-old child for whom Hamilton was the sole support.

Judge McAuliffe authorized the transfusion; concluding that: "... since death would likely follow unless a transfusion was authorized, I should authorize the hospital and physician to proceed with transfusions as if the patient had given consent, and that the substantial interest of the state [presumably to protect innocent third parties] warranted the exercise of equitable jurisdiction."

Thereafter, Hamilton appealed the lower court decision, but the appeal was dismissed as "moot". Not giving up, Hamilton then filed a declaratory judgment action in a local court asking that McAuliffe's decision be declared "erroneous". Outcome unknown, but predictable.

******************

IN RE WILLIAM J. DELL was a 1975 Pennsylvania court decision. In January 1975, Bill Dell was admitted to North Hills Passavant Hospital, where he was informed that he had lost so much blood from a bleeding ulcer that he would die within hours without a transfusion. Dell refused to consent based on his WatchTower beliefs (that Armageddon would occur in October). Dell's wife, Karen Dell, a registered nurse, petitioned a local Judge for authorization for the needed transfusions, and such was granted. Apparently, the Judge must have discerned that a husband willing to die and leave his family for such ridiculous reasons must have one or more mental issues.

******************

In August 1975 (just two months prior to Armageddon), a Jehovah's Witness named Kathy Fenelon, 22, of Dubuque, Iowa, delivered a newborn boy at home with the aid of a midwife. When Kathy experienced severe hemorraging, her non-JW husband, Michael Fenelon, 25, took her to Madison General Hospital. There, doctors agreed not to seek court intervention on the transfusion issue, and after much effort and medical care, Fenelon apparently recovered.

******************

HOLMES v. SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL was a 1972 Illinois federal district court decision. Limited details. Full decision not available. Ernest J. Holmes, a twenty year old Jehovah's Witness, was seriously injured in an automobile accident in August 1969. Due to excessive loss of blood, Holmes was told that he would need a blood transfusion to survive, which he promptly refused citing his religious beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Ernest Holmes was recently married to Kathleen Holmes, and they had an infant child. However, Kathleen Holmes also refused to consent, as did Ernest's parents, brother, and sister. Ernest and Kathleen even signed a form releasing the Hospital and doctors from liability if they were to perform surgery and operations without any blood transfusions.

Ernest eventually lost consciousness about four hours after arriving at the hospital, and in desperation the Hospital petitioned a local court to declare Ernest incompetent as a "neglected minor", in order to have a guardian appointed for the purpose of authorizing a blood transfusion. The court granted the Hospital's petition, and the guardian authorized a blood transfusion. Despite the transfusions and the doctors best efforts to save his life, Holmes died from the injuries and blood loss attributable to the accident.

Holmes' family was not notified of the emergency court hearing; thus were unable to contest such. Kathleen Holmes filed a federal lawsuit against the Hospital, at least two doctors, the guardian, and even the Trial Judge; claiming they had all conspired to deprive the deceased Ernest J. Holmes of his civil rights by medically treating the decedent in a manner inconsistent with his religious beliefs, while acting under color of State law. Ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss, the district court ruled that the trial judge and the court-appointed guardian enjoyed judicial immunity in this suit. Motions from the defendant hospital and doctors to dismiss were denied. The district court eventually held that the hospital and doctors violated this decedent's civil rights. The decision is sometimes cited to acknowledge a court's right to consider the affect that the death of a Jehovah's Witness parent would have on their minor children, but the fact that this decedent had an infant child evidently did not change this decision.

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES P. OSBORNE was a 1972 District of Columbia appellate court decision. Charles Osborne was a 34 year old father of two young children. Osborne was admitted to Cafritz Memorial Hospital with injuries and internal bleeding caused when a tree fell on him. As the need for whole blood became apparent, Osborne and his wife both refused to give their consent for the necessary transfusion. Both gave as reasons their religious beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The Hospital petitioned the local court for guardianship and authority to administer medically required transfusions.

When the petition was brought to the judge's home the night of the accident, the patient's wife, brother, and grandfather were present. They stated the views of Osborne, and agreed with them, explaining that those views are based on strong religious convictions. The grandfather explained that Osborne wanted very much to live, but that, "He wants to live in the Bible's promised new world where life will never end. A few hours here would nowhere compare to everlasting life." Osborne's wife testified: "He told me he did not want blood � he did not care if he had to die."

Concerned with the patient's capacity to make such a decision in light of his serious condition, and also recognizing the possibility that the use of drugs might have impaired Osborne's judgment, the judge went to the hospital to talk to Osborne and his doctors. Osborne was aware of the implications of his refusal and was fully competent. His beliefs were longstanding. His father had even died a few months before, refusing blood, a decision which the same family members supported. Testimony was given which indicated that the family would care for Osborne's two young children if he did die.

The judge even sought out the solution some Jehovah's Witnesses had hinted at in order to save their lives. [See GEORGE below.] The judge asked Osborne if he would consider himself blameless before God if the court ordered the transfusion against his wishes. Instead of answering like most Jehovah's Witnesses answered similar questions -- then the JW would not sin -- Osborne said he would still be accountable before God. Such would cause him to lose everlasting life in the new world - even if he "unwillingly" received a transfusion.

The judge thereafter denied the Hospital's petition. On emergency appeal, the appellate court affirmed the denial. Fortunately, Osborne recovered without any blood tranfusions, and was discharged from the hospital.

IN RE NEUMANN was a 1971 Ohio court decision. In October 1971, Mrs. Jeffrey Neumann, 20, of Cleveland, Ohio, chose to die and leave motherless two infant children rather than accept a blood transfusion. Neumann died from blood loss three weeks after delivering her second child. Husband, Jeffrey Neumann, age 23, survived, as did 2 year old daughter, Lara Michelle Neumann, and the recently birthed baby.

Officials at Cleveland's Lakewood Hospital actually sought and obtained a court order to administer the life-saving transfusions, thus "shouldering the responsibility" before God, but they decided not to adminster the needed transfusions after they were threatened with one or more lawsuits by several JW officials present at the hospital to make sure such did not occur.

Jeffrey Neumann, a Jehovah's Witnesses minister who fully supported his wife's decision, stated: "I don't think any person loves anyone as much as I love my wife." Local Cleveland spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses, Eugene Tenke, explained that because a blood transfusion is used "to nourish and feed the body", the sect considers this "eating blood", which is prohibited by the Bible. What a bunch of geniuses!

******************

In March 1968, Mrs. James F. Christian, 28, a Jehovah's Witness Mother of two, who was also a Registered Nurse, died at Phoenix Good Samaritan Hospital after refusing to consent to a blood transfusion. Cause of death was excessive blood loss from unspecified hemorraging. Unknown whether she had just delivered a child. Fully supported by husband, James F. Christian. Family was originally from Des Moines, Iowa. At the time of death, hospital was seeking court intervention.

******************

In December 1967, a Jehovah's Witness father of two children, named Cruz Guerrero, of Compton, California, underwent surgery to remove a benign tumor from his stomach, which had been causing bleeding leading to a severe loss of blood. Guerrero would not consent to a blood transfusion during or after the surgery, which would have cost only $75.00. After this JW Father of two lapsed into a semicoma from a severe loss of blood, Doctors at Harbor General Hospital transported the JW to a U. S. Navy station fifteen miles away, and placed him in a "recompressure chamber", which forced 14 times the regular amount of oxygen into what blood remained in Guerrero's body. Cost to taxpayers? Estimated at $15-20,000.00 (that's 1967 dollars).

******************

IN RE MARTHA RIDGE was a 1966 Washington state court decision. In February 1966, a Jehovah's Witness named Martha Ridge, 35, was critically ill, and needed surgery during which a blood transfusion would likely be needed. When Ridge refused to consent to any transfusions, the Enumclaw hospital sought court intervention. A Seattle judge authorized any needed transfusions based on the reasoning that the state had an interest in ensuring that this Mother of 5 children survived to rear them.

******************

POWELL v. COLUMBIAN PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER was a 1965 New York court decision. Limited details. In December 1965, a Jehovah's Witness named Willie Mae Powell was admitted to Columbian Presbyterian Medical Center to deliver her sixth child. Although the planned delivery was via caesarian section, the Hospital had agreed to perform such with a signed liability release, despite the possibility of excessive blood loss, and despite the fact that Powell had refused to consent to blood transfusions due to her religious beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Powell did in fact suffer excessive blood loss, and Powell was in danger of dying. Powell's husband and other family members were NOT Jehovah's Witnesses, and they and hospital staff pleaded with Powell to give her consent. She refused. Thereafter, Powell's husband petitioned a local court to authorize life-saving blood transfusions. The court granted the petition after coming to the realization that Powell would accept a transfusion if such was court ordered, so that Powell was not responsible for such. This judge did not take this case lightly, but as he stated:

"This matter generated a barrage of legal niceties, misinformation and emotional feelings on the part of all concerned -- including the Court personnel. Nor could I forget for one moment my convictions with regard to the individual�s right to be let alone or -- crucially important -- that a human life hung in the balance.Never before had my judicial robe weighed so heavily on my shoulders. Years of legal training, experience and responsibility had added a new dimension to my mental processes -- I, almost by reflex action, subjected the papers to the test of justiciability, jurisdiction and legality. I read Application of President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., ..., and was convinced of the proper course from a legal standpoint. ... It became clear to me that the crux of the problem lay, not in Mrs. Powell's religious convictions, but in her refusal to sign a prior written authorization for the transfusion of blood. She did not object to receiving the treatment involved--she would not, however, direct its use. I was also convinced that the hospital, having obtained a signed release of liability..., took the view that it had fulfilled its obligations to this patient and would not, under these circumstances, administer blood transfusions even if necessary to save the patient's life. How legalistic minded our society has become, and what an ultra-legalistic maze we have created to the extent that society and the individual have become enmeshed and paralyzed by its unrealistic entanglements! I was reminded of 'The Fall' by Camus, and I knew that no release -- no legalistic absolution -- would absolve me or the Court from responsibility if I, speaking for the Court, answered 'No' to the question 'Am I my brother�s keeper?' This woman wanted to live. I could not let her die!"

******************

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE was a 1965 Connecticut federal District Court decision. On March 15, 1965, Elishas George, the 39 year old father of four children, voluntarily admitted himself into the Veterans Administration Hospital in West Haven, Connecticut. Although bleeding seriously from his gastrointestinal tract, George refused blood transfusions. Both George and his wife were Jehovah's Witnesses, the religion which prohibits blood transfusions. Both George and his wife, Elizabeth, signed releases, relieving the hospital and its employees of any civil liability for any injury which followed from the lack of blood transfusions.

On March 17, 1965, at approximately 11:30 A.M., an attorney for the government, on behalf of the Hospital, orally applied to the federal district court for an order granting permission to administer blood transfusions in order to save George's life. Upon being informed that the patient's condition was "precarious" but not extreme, the court refused to act on the oral application. Thereafter the government brought a civil action with service upon both Mr. and Mrs. George, and set the matter down for hearing on March 18, 1965.

However, at approximately 6:30 P.M., on March 17, 1965 the Court received a telephone call from the government's attorney and was informed the patient's condition had become critical. Further, the government had prepared a written application for a temporary restraining order, supported by an affidavit from the treating physician, which stated the Court's order was now necessary to save the patient's life.

The Court arrived at the hospital at 8:00 P.M. and until 10:15 P.M. interviewed five doctors, Mrs. George, Mr. George, Mrs. Gradie George, mother of the patient, and several members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect. Both Mr. and Mrs. George expressly declined the Court's offer to appoint counsel of their own choosing or to be represented by an attorney selected by the Court.

George�s mother was not a Jehovah's Witnesses, thus was not opposed to a blood transfusion. Medical testimony indicated that at least five pints of whole blood was needed. Tests indicated the patient had already lost 60-65% of his red blood cells. Any further bleeding would lead to shock and probably death.

At the time of the hearing, George was coherent, rational and rather strong. George stated that he would not agree to be transfused, but he would in no way resist a court order permitting it, because "it would be the Court�s will and not his own." The order was signed, and the transfusion administered. By March 22, George's health was no longer in danger, and the temporary order was dissolved.

This decision is somewhat unique in that it is one of the few that actually considered the moral quandry in which Jehovah's Witnesses place hospitals and doctors, stating in part:

"Mr. George appeared to the Court to be coherent, rational and rather strong. However, doctors in attendance agreed his outward appearance was deceiving and his internal condition was most serious. When the Court introduced himself, George's first remarks were that he would not agree to be transfused but would in no way resist a court order permitting it, because it would be the Court's will and not his own. His "conscience was clear," and the responsibility for the act was "upon the Court's conscience." He stated he would rather die than agree to a transfusion. The Court advised George it had no power to force a transfusion upon him, and he was free to resist the transfusion, even by the rather simple physical maneuver of placing his hand over the area to be injected by the needle. George stated he would "in no way" resist the doctors' actions once the Court's order was signed.

"Mrs. George, citing certain passages from the Bible, was adamant in her opposition to the transfusions. She insisted that the Court had no right to order the transfusion in violation of their religious beliefs. Two other Jehovah's Witnesses, visiting the patient, concurred in Mrs. George's remarks.

...

"In the difficult realm of religious liberty it is often assumed only the religious conscience is imperiled. Here, however, the doctor�s conscience and professional oath must also be respected. In the present case the patient voluntarily submitted himself to and insisted upon medical care. Simultaneously he sought to dictate to treating physicians a course of treatment amounting to medical malpractice. To require these doctors to ignore the mandates of their own conscience, even in the name of free religious exercise, cannot be justified under these circumstances. The patient may knowingly decline treatment, but he may not demand mistreatment."

******************

IN RE JANET KING was a 1964 California court decision. Reported details are sketchy. Either the reporter was not that sharp, or he was really sharp. In March 1964, Janet King was driving her 5 year-old daughter to the dentist when they were involved in a serious crash. Nothing was said about injuries to the child - just that she was reported to be doing "quite well".

Due to "critical injuries", St. Rose Hospital officials sought court intervention when Tony King refused to consent to transfusions for his wife. Apparently, the court heard this case, but declined to intervene. A JW Overseer was mentioned to have presented arguments to the judge on behalf of the Kings, who had converted only 3-4 years previous. The case was described as dropped. I still wonder about the child, and whether there might have been two cases.

The reporter also noted that while Janet was in the emergency room that a group of "friends and relatives" had gathered to pray for her in a room next to the ER. Right! They were JWs, and they were there to make sure no transfusion was given. King was last reported in satisfactory condition, but as is typical in these scenarios, ongoing blood loss could have changed the outcome.

******************

APPLICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE was a 1964 District of Columbia appellate court decision. Limited details. Jesse Jones, age twenty-five years old, and mother of a seven month old infant, was admitted to the hospital suffering from a ruptured ulcer, which had caused her to lose two-thirds of her blood. As Jehovah�s Witnesses, both Jones and her husband, James, refused to consent to a blood transfusion.

Attorneys for Georgetown Hospital filed a petition in equity to the United States District Court, a court of general jurisdiction. The application sought a decree in the nature of an injunction and declaratory judgmentto determine the legal rights and liabilities between the Hospital and doctors and Mrs. Jones and her husband. The treatment proposed by the hospital in its application was not a single transfusion, but a series of transfusions. The hospital and doctors sought a court determination before undertaking either this course of treatment, or some alternative. The District Court denied the petition.

Attorneys for Georgetown Hospital then applied for an emergency writ seeking relief from the action of the United States District Court denying the Hospital's application for permission to administer blood transfusions to an emergency patient. The application recited that "Mrs. Jesse E. Jones is presently a patient at Georgetown University Hospital," "she is in extremis," according to the attending physician "blood transfusions are necessary immediately in order to save her life," and "consent to the administration thereof can be obtained neither from the patient nor her husband." The patient and her husband based their refusal on their religious beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The petition requested that the attending physicians "may" administer such transfusions to Mrs. Jones as might be "necessary to save her life."

Judge Wright, of the Court Of Appeals, went to Georgetown Hospital, where he conferred with Jones and her husband, and Hospital staff and several physicians. All of the physicians agreed that Jones' condition was critical. Without a blood transfusion, she would die. Even with a transfusion, Jones had only a little better than 50 percent chance of surviving.

Jones' husband told the judge of his religious objections, but he said that "... if the court ordered the transfusion, the responsibility was not his."

The judge tried to talk with Mrs. Jones, but her grave condition made it difficult to communicate:

"The only audible reply I could hear was, 'Against my will.' It was obvious that the woman was not in a mental condition to make a decision. I was reluctant to press her because of the seriousness of her condition and because I felt that to suggest repeatedly the imminence of death without blood might place a strain on her religious convictions. I asked her whether she would oppose the blood transfusion if the court allowed it. She indicated, as best I could make out, that it would not then be her responsibility. ...

"... Mrs. Jones had no wish to be a martyr. And her religion merely prevented her consent to a transfusion. If the law undertook the responsibility of authorizing the transfusion without her consent, no problem would be raised with respect to her religious practice. Thus, the effect of the order was to preserve for Mrs. Jones the life she wanted without sacrifice of her religious beliefs."

The President of Georgetown University pleaded with Jones' husband to consent to a transfusion. Father Bunn tried to explain to him how a blood transfusion was not the same thing as drinking or eating blood. Jones refused to budge from his prior refusals.

Judge Wright then met with several doctors, the Hospital's attorneys, and Jones' husband. The Judge then signed a temporary order authorizing only those transfusions needed to save Jones' life, reasoning:

"... a life hung in the balance. There was no time for research and reflection. Death could have mooted the cause in a matter of minutes, if action were not taken to preserve the status quo. To refuse to act, only to find later that the law required action, was a risk I was unwilling to accept. I determined to act on the side of life."

This temporary order allowed Jones' husband to petition the Court of Appeals for a full hearing anytime during the series of transfusions which might follow. One or more transfusions were administered, and Mrs. Jones survived. The Jones moved for a rehearing by the entire Court of Appeals, but their request was denied. Interestingly, rumor has it that many of Judge Wright's peers were extremely displeased with his decision, but they were afraid to challenge a decision which saved the life of a mother of a young infant, and possibly establish an appellate court precedent.

In his decision, Judge Wright reviewed case evidence that supported compulsory medical treatment for children. He reasoned that since Jones was "in extremis" and hardly "compos mentis", she could be compared to a child. Jones was no more able to competently decide what was appropriate medical treatment for herself than a child. If parents could not forbid necessary medical treatment for a child, then a husband had no right to forbid such for his wife.

Wright further noted court cases involving children and the parens patriae doctrine. The state did not allow parents to abandon their children. The refusal of medical treatment by Mrs. Jones could ultimately result in "voluntary abandonment". Jones had a responsibility to the state to care for her infant, thus the state had an interest in preserving her life.

Judge Wright also took note of the above highlighted comments made by both Jones and her husband regarding "responsibility" for the court-ordered blood transfusions -something more Judges should do more often. As did Jones and her husband, the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses believe that if the blood transfusions are court-ordered, then "Jehovah" will not hold the recipient responsible for the supposed "sin". So long as the Jehovah's Witness, and their JW family, are allowed to establish that they have protested and refused the administering of transfusions, then a Judge may then save the Jehovah's Witnesses life by ordering the transfusion, and thereby take on the "responsibility" of such with "Jehovah".

******************

In September 1963, Harold Mather, 38, a WatchTower Convention attendee from Oregon, was struck and seriously injured by a mentally ill driver in Los Angeles, California . Some news reports hinted that Mather was convinced by his wife, Neva Mather, to refuse to consent to a needed blood transfusion. Some reported that Mather was in shock, and thus could not have known what was going on. It was also reported that Mather's nine year-old son begged Mather at the hospital to consent to a transfusion so that he would not die.

In a followup newspaper article, the JWs appeared to want to address these negatives. A JW who had been involved in the incident stated that what had been reported "was slightly blown out of proportion." The JW continued, ""In the first place, the Mathers have no son, as the news stories reported. They have a daughter, Linda, who is 9, and she wasn't at the hospital when Harold and his wife talked about the transfusion." [That doesn't mean that the daughter did not speak to the father at some point thereafter - before he died.] The JW did not address the issue whether Harold Mather was in shock after the accident, thus incapable of refusing transfusions.

******************

IN RE BILLY FAULKNER was a 1962 Mississippi court decision. In April-May 1962, another no-transfusion drama played out which involved a 22 year-old father of three; a Jehovah's Witness named Billy Faulkner, who lived in Meridian, Mississippi. Faulkner was hospitalized with bleeding ulcers. Doctors would not operate unless Billy consented to blood transfusions, which he refused. Young Faulkners parents were not JWs, and they did everything they could to convince him to change his mind. However, Billy had converted to the JWs in order to marry Maxine Faulkner, who was now the mother of his three children.

Maxine seemed to enjoy the attention given her by newspaper and even television reporters as the drama first played out. They recorded her stating on one hand that she was "positive" that Billy would not die, and on the other hand, that if Billy did die, then it would be "God's will". Maxine Faulkner also told reporters that she was cutting and saving all the news clippings for when her three young children grew up. Well, she got to use them. Billy died a slow painful death of 7-8 weeks. Those clippings must really have comforted those three pitiful orphans.

Oh, the Meridian hospital petitioned for court intervention, but the Mississippi Judge ruled that he could do nothing so long as Billy was a competent adult. Too bad the judge was not a "thinker". The state has a large interest in seeing to it that its citizens live to rear the children they have brought into this world.

******************

This 1960 newspaper report comes from Rochester England. I have tried to resist posting JW incidents from outside the United States (especially the multiple "hospital kidnappings"), but occasionally an incident just screams to be posted here. Was this incident an example of "faith", or was it suicide resulting from despair -- despair from having just lost her one-year-old and possibly her three-year-old, or even possibly "pre-existing despair"?

Because of her husband's religion, a mother of five children died Tuesday night after refusing the blood transfusion that might have saved her life. "My wife's decision was a shining example as an act of faith," said Henry Humphries, a Jehovah's Witness. The sect opposes transfusions.

"THE DECISION was hers," Humphries asserted. "But she was aware of my belief, and she would respect my wishes as head of the household. That is scriptural, for the Bible says: 'You wives obey your husbands in all things'."

"We could not force Mrs. Humphries to have a transfusion against her will," said a hospital spokesman. HUMPHRIES' wife, Eliza, 37, was injured Sunday when the family motorcycle and a truck collided. The couple's youngest child, Russell, 1, riding with his mother in the sidecar, was killed and another son, Richard, 3, is in the hospital with head injuries. Humphries escaped almost unhurt.

"The surgeon told me that if my wife was given a blood transfusion, she would probably live, and if she did not have one, she would probably die," Humphries said.

MY WIFE believed in our religion, but she had not become a dedicated member as I did three years ago. "I told her what the doctor wanted to do and she said, 'No, I will not take blood. Just give me a drink and stroke my hair.' Then she closed her eyes and became unconscious. She never came round again."

******************

In September 1959, less than 6 months after moving his family from California to Arkansas, in "JW-speak", in order "to serve where the need is great" (otherwise known by JW locals as "to serve where the great are needed"), Gerald Trask, 27, his wife, and their three children were all injured in a tragic automobile accident.

Gerald refused to consent to necessary blood transfusions, and slowly bled to death from internal injuries over a four day period. Jerry Trask, 3, underwent intensive surgery. No transfusion was needed, but the hospital was prepared to obtained a court-order if such was needed. Unknown what happened to wife and other two children.

******************

Details are sketchy, but apparently, in 1959, three JW children in Newberry, Michigan, were left parentless after the father died in September, after an automobile accident, and their mother died in October, from blood loss, after giving birth to the third child, named Lonie Ray Cummings. Wesley Cummings, 1, survived, as did a sister, age 3.

It is tragedies like these that are never told because such gives credence to the reasoning that adult JWs should be transfused by court order if they have minor children to rear.

******************

In July 1958, Mrs. Elizabeth Denno, 43, of Haverhill, Massachusetts, died of excessive blood loss caused by a bleeding ulcer in her stomach and intestine. Elizabeth Denno died leaving her husband, Gardner, 45, to care for two minor children. Four adult children also survived. Elizabeth Denno was first hospitalized in September 1957, when she initially refused the recommended blood transfusions because she was a Jehovah's Witness. During the many weeks Denno spent in and out of Hale Hospital, several clergymen and even a Rabbi visited with Denno, and tried to explain to her that the WatchTower Society was misinterpreting the Bible on the topic of blood. Denno paid no attention, but preferred to lay down her life for the benefit of the WatchTower Society. Denno ignored the pleadings of her non-JW husband, and she ignored her parental responsibilities to her minor children. It is not known how many of her adult children were JWs, and supported her decision to die. Given months of publicity, it is surprising that no judges or attorneys in Massachusetts stepped forward and argued to a court that her life should be spared for the benefit of her minor children.

******************

MARTIN ET AL v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION was a 1956 California appellate court decision. The petitioners in this case were the widow and children of Charles C. Martin. While in the scope and course of his employment, Charles Martin sustained serious injuries, including a ruptured spleen, when the scaffold upon which he was working suddenly collapsed. Martin and his wife were informed at the hospital that an operation would be necessary, and that a transfusion of whole blood would be necessary.

Martin and his wife advised the hospital authorities and the attending physician that they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and that a transfusion of blood was against their religious beliefs, and that if it was a question of permitting a blood transfusion or dying, Martin would choose death. Before Martin was taken to surgery he and his wife signed a release, in which the following is stated: "I, Charles Martin, refuse to have a transfusion of blood, even tho it may mean the loss of my life, because of my religious beliefs."

An operation was then performed, the physicians using blood plasma and other substitutes for whole blood. Upon the opening of the abdomen the cavity was found to be full of blood, and there was a laceration of the spleen pulp with active bleeding. The spleen was surgically removed and, about two hours after the operation, Martin went into acute shock. The attending physician ordered a blood transfusion in the hope of saving his life, but the hospital authorities declined to consent to its being given because of the refusal of Martin and his wife to permit such transfusion, and shortly thereafter Charles Martin died.

At that time in California (since revised for JWs and others), a pertinent part of the worker's compensation law stated:

"No compensation is payable in case of the death or disability of an employee when his death is caused, or when and so far as his disability is caused, continued, or aggravated, by an unreasonable refusal to submit to medical treatment, or to any surgical treatment, if the risk of the treatment is, in the opinion of the commission, based upon expert medical or surgical advice, inconsiderable in view of the seriousness of the injury."

It was established by medical evidence that transfusion of substitutes for whole blood would not suffice to prevent shock, that transfusion of whole blood is the usual procedure in spleen operations and that the risks of such blood transfusions are minimal compared with the benefits thereof, and that the transfusion of whole blood in adequate amounts during and after surgery would probably have saved Charles Martin's life.

Therefore, the Commission ruled that Martin's death was "proximately" caused by his refusal to accept proper medical treatment, rather than the accident itself. That meant zero death benefits for Martin's children (and wife), who had not participated in their parents' shortsighted decision.

Martin's wife appealed. The Court of Appeal of California affirmed the Commission's ruling, and the Supreme Court refused to hear further appeal. This appellate court reasoned, in part:

"Petitioners entirely overlook the fact that not only are Martin's rights to compensation involved but the employer's liability for the payment of compensation is also involved. Certainly it was not unreasonable for the Legislature to fix as a condition to the employer's liability that the death of an employee must arise out of his employment and that it should not exist where death is the result of the voluntary act of the employee in refusing medical attention. Here the commission not only found that Martin's refusal of medical care was unreasonable but that his death was due not to the injury received in the scope and course of his employment but by his refusal of transfusions of whole blood. Martin was not obligated to work in an employment that rendered him subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act, and if he accepted such employment he accepted it, insofar as his right to compensation is concerned, subject to the conditions imposed by the Legislature upon the right to such compensation.

"It is petitioners' contention, however, that if the statute is construed as permitting the commission to hold that an employee's refusal to accept medical aid is unreasonable where the acceptance of such aid is contrary to his religious beliefs, the statute denies him his constitutional right of religious freedom and to the equal protection of the laws. There is no merit in this contention, for 'although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not ... .' Under the statute here Martin was free to believe and worship as he chose, and he was further free, if he so chose, to practice his belief; but if he exercised that choice and his death resulted from his choice, petitioners were
not entitled, as a matter of right, to the benefits of the workmen's compensation laws.

... ...

"... Martin was free to accept the tenets of his church and believe in them, and he was free to exercise his right to practice those beliefs, but that did not give him a right to impose, contrary to the statute, a liability upon his employer for his death resulting from his voluntary practice of his religion. ... "