Julie,
Some doctors or hospital administrators have turned to the courts for legal authorization to force blood on an individual. Concerning those who have followed this course, Dr. D. N. Goldstein wrote in The Wisconsin Medical Journal:
"Doctors taking this position have denied the sacrifices of all the martyrs that have glorified history with their supreme devotion to principle even at the expense of their own lives. For those patients who choose certain death rather than violate a religious scruple are of the same stuff as those who paid with their lives for faith in God or who went to the stake rather than accept [forced] baptism. . . . Ours is the duty to save life but we may well question whether we do not also have a duty to safeguard integrity and preserve the few gestures of personal authenticity that continue to occur in an increasingly regimented society. . . . No doctor should seek legal assistance to save a body by destroying a soul. The patient’s life is his own"-The Wisconsin Medical Journal, August 1967, p. 375
Consider the remarks made by Dr. William P. Williamson at the First National Congress on Medical Ethics and Professionalism:
"Certainly, the physician’s first thought must be the welfare of the patient. Since life is a gift of the Creator to the individual, the primary decision rightfully belongs to the patient, because the patient is the custodian of that gift. . . . The physician should treat the patient within the dictates of the patient’s religion, and not force his own religious convictions upon the patient."-The Journal of the American Medical Association, September 5, 1966, pp. 794, 795
Some persons in the medical and legal professions have recognized that a competent adult has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. But they have held that if parents refuse permission for their child, a transfusion should be forced by court order. This position, however, lacks fundamental consistency and harmony, as pointed out in the journal Forensic Science:
"Are we then to assume that the courts are willing to assign a different religion to the children than that of their parents, when statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children are reared and indeed follow the same religious denomination as their parents? Would this also not be as much an infringement of religious rights of the children by the courts as those rights which the court is trying to protect for the adults under the First Amendment [of the Constitution] by denying the transfusion over the adult’s objections? Are the courts not assigning in essence a religion to the children if they deny transfusions on religious grounds for adults and permit them for the children of the same adults?"-Forensic Science, July 1972, p. 135.
Additionally, even if a doctor sincerely believes that a child needs a blood transfusion, does that mean that no other therapy will do? Or does it mean instead that he thinks that a transfusion offers more likelihood of success than alternative therapies? In this connection a council of judges in the United States of America wrote in "Guides to the Judge in Medical Orders Affecting Children":
"If there is a choice of procedures—if, for example, the doctor recommends a procedure which has an 80 per cent chance of success but which the parents disapprove, and the parents have no objection to a procedure which has only a 40 per cent chance of success—the doctor must take the medically riskier but parentally unobjectionable course."-Crime and Delinquency, April 1968, p. 116
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in its July 25, 1990, issue: "Evidence shows that blood products, like other health care resources, are often used inappropriately . . . We conducted a face-to-face survey of 122 general surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and anesthesiologists in three hospitals to evaluate the influence of several clinical and nonclinical factors on transfusion decision making. We found widespread deficiencies in physicians’ knowledge of transfusion risks and indications."
I have to also disagree with your contention, whether stated implicitly or merely implied, that blood transfusions are the best standard of care which offers the best chance for survival. I ask you, please, to do some research of your own on this topic. You could start by using Google to do a search under the topic "bloodless surgery" or something similar. You may be surprised to find that the newest and most advanced centers are on the cusp of the "bloodless" trend. To start with here is one article I found very interesting:
'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion
Techniques first used for Jehovah's Witnesses gaining popularity
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466831/
Thank You
Bambootiger