ABSTRACT
One of the purposes of this book is to examine the impact of religious belief on autonomous decisions in medical law and to explore the interconnection between these variables through case studies. Human rights law, domestic law, medical procedures, and protocols all attest to the fact that a legally capacitated adult patient can refuse treatment, even if such a refusal has a negative impact upon the patient’s health. The right to refuse medical treatment is, thus, enshrined in the spirit and practice of medical law. Why, then, does this book consider in depth the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witness patients, given that such refusal is permitted under current law, in the case of adults who have legal capacity? This is an area in medical law that deals with the manifestation of religious belief in life or death contexts. It grasps the public imagination and perplexes people: they cannot understand why anyone would refuse a life-transforming and life-saving intervention. Medical personnel are confronted with this as a practical reality. It has even formed the basis of recent 2016 guidelines to surgeons. 1 This issue provides an exemplar for using the framework as a mechanism to support the arbitration of cases where mentally competent patients make decisions, in line with the exercise of their generic rights. This chapter aims to situate the problems that arise when adults refuse blood transfusions within the context of theological positioning, English case law, Strasbourg jurisprudence, and the PGC. The current law in respect of adults, as will be seen, is broadly compliant with the PGC. The way in which legally capacitated adults are permitted to exercise their will-rights will be contrasted in the next chapter with the manner in which the exercise of the will-rights of mentally competent adolescents/children is more strongly impeded by the paternalism of the courts.
