Judge orders blood - No AHCD

[Tortuga]

This shows how important it is to have an AHCD.

 

High Court allows Irish hospital to give blood transfusion to Jehovah's witness in ICU if required (msn.com)

 

The High Court has made orders allowing a hospital to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to a member of the Jehovah Witness faith.

The order was made on Wednesday afternoon by Mr Justice Tony O'Connor who said accepted that the patient's life maybe "on the line" and that he may require a blood transfusion.

While the judge said that he while respected the religious beliefs the man holds the court was satisfied that the man currently lacks the capacity to make an informed decision about the medical care he is being provided with.

 

The court also noted that no Advance Care Directive, which is a document held by members of the Jehovah's Witness faith stating that they are not to be given any blood or blood products under any circumstances, in relation to the man been provided to the hospital.

[bagwell1987]

He could be blood guilty against himself! Terrible situation. 

MD said the new directive looks different, does anyone have a new one? 

[Tortuga]

1 hour ago, bagwell1987 said:

He could be blood guilty against himself! Terrible situation. 

MD said the new directive looks different, does anyone have a new one? 

It now includes health care decisions during pregnancy. Do you need one? 

[hatcheckgirl]

I can understand why the hospital would do this. They have to cover themselves. We must have our directive up to date and on us, or we really are leaving ourselves open to this.

 

I think everyone is being reasonable, even the judge and the family, who thanked the hospital for their treatment so far. It’s good the judge said: “the hospital could return to court and seek to discharge the order if the man's health improve to the degree that he regains capacity and is able to give clear instructions about his treatment.”

[Jf800]

Our CO told us about a similar situation in our country. An elder suffered a medical emergency and did not have his AHCD. A lot of work had to be done to protect their right to refuse. After his recovery, he was removed as an elder for his negligence.

[Brandon]

Here’s the proper link with microsoft junk removed: https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-allows-irish-hospital-to-give-blood-transfusion-to-jehovahs-witness-in-icu-if-required/a1675430119.html

 

edit; and here’s a version with the paywall removed: https://archive.ph/4HTJY

Edited March 29 by Brandon

[Witness1970]

10 hours ago, bagwell1987 said:

He could be blood guilty against himself! Terrible situation. 

MD said the new directive looks different, does anyone have a new one? 

I got a new one about 2 weeks ago. It looked identical to the one I had 7 years ago.  Of course, both of those had differences to the one I had when I lived in Georgia, USA.  Different states have different rules.  In Georgia, it was not necessary to get it notarized.  In North Carolina, it has to be notarized when signed.

[Mike047]

Generally it is worth checking the current medical advancements concerning blood as to whether to change any directives given before. We have reviewed ours  concerning blood fractions and medical/surgical procedures from time to time.