The Transfusion Decision
At City Hospital, a 15-year-old patient, Amelia, has acute leukaemia. Three months of chemotherapy have failed. Her consultants say that without a blood transfusion she will probably die within two to three weeks; with it she has roughly a 70% chance of reaching remission and a bone-marrow transplant. Amelia's parents are practising Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse consent for transfusion, on the basis of passages such as Leviticus 17:10–14 and Acts 15:28–29, which they read as forbidding the taking of blood. Amelia herself, after three months of treatment, tells her nurse that she wants the transfusion. Her 17-year-old sister, who shares her parents' faith, says Amelia is being pressured by the hospital. The hospital ethics committee meets in 48 hours. The chaplain, who is not a Witness, is asked to submit a written view.
1. Explain the religious reasoning behind the parents' refusal, and explain why it cannot be dismissed as uninformed or irrational.
Read the worked answer
The texts. Leviticus 17:10–14 treats blood as the vehicle of life and forbids its consumption; Acts 15:28–29, in the letter from the Jerusalem council, instructs Gentile believers to 'abstain from blood'. Jehovah's Witnesses read these as a standing command that covers transfusion as well as eating, because the point is the sacredness of life as belonging to God, not the manner of intake.
A settled position, not a whim. The teaching has been consistent in Watch Tower publications since the mid-twentieth century and is taught as a mark of obedience; members who accept blood may be disfellowshipped. The parents are therefore not making an isolated choice - they are holding a position that has already cost them something.
Why 'irrational' is the wrong word. The refusal is internally coherent: if life belongs to God and blood represents life, then receiving blood is taking back what has been entrusted, and obeying God outranks prolonging life. That is a different ranking of values, not an absence of reasoning. Note also that Witnesses do not refuse medicine in general - they accept chemotherapy, surgery and non-blood alternatives - which distinguishes them from someone refusing all treatment out of fear.
Where the nuance lies. The tradition itself makes individual conscience decisive and permits some blood fractions. So the parents' view is the mainstream of their tradition, but it is still a conscientious decision, and Amelia's own conscience is a separate question the tradition does not automatically answer for her at 15.
2. Weigh the competing considerations and recommend what the ethics committee should advise.
Read the worked answer
Four considerations.
- Sanctity of life. Both sides hold it. For the parents, life is God's gift and must not be sustained by an act of disobedience; for the clinicians, a 70% chance of remission is a strong reason to act. The disagreement is not life versus death but which duty to life governs.
- Autonomy. Amelia has lived with the disease for three months and states a clear wish. Capacity is a factual test (understanding, retention, weighing, communication), not an age. If she has it, her view must carry real weight; if she does not, the question falls back to best interests.
- Parental authority and religious freedom. Parents normally consent for a 15-year-old, and freedom of religion protects their practice. But neither right is absolute, and the state may override both where a child's life is at risk.
- The sister's claim of pressure. Investigate it rather than dismiss it - and note it cuts both ways, since the hospital may also be pressuring Amelia.
Recommendation. Do not decide in 48 hours if a short delay is clinically safe. (a) Formally assess and record Amelia's capacity. (b) Explore non-blood alternatives and cell salvage immediately. (c) Mediate with the family, with a Witness liaison present rather than the chaplain alone. (d) If a capacitous Amelia still wants transfusion and her parents refuse, the committee should not authorise treatment itself but advise the trust to seek a court declaration. That protects everyone: the parents get a hearing, Amelia's wishes go before an independent judge, and clinicians are not asked to act unlawfully. The likely outcome in most jurisdictions is authorisation, with transfusion given against the parents' wishes but with Amelia's consent.