Question

Case: "A 2 year old infant has lost a massive amount of blood in a road accident and again the best chance of saving the child’s life is an urgent blood transfusion and operative intervention to arrest the bleeding. Both the child’s parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses and refuse to give permission for a blood transfusion, requesting instead that the best available non-blood products are used to restore volume and that surgery is carried out without blood. They understand that this will be a far more dangerous course of action than surgery plus blood transfusion but persist in refusing permission for a blood transfusion for their child. The surgeon in charge tells them there is no time to argue about the issue, and he is cross matching blood for transfusion and will administer the blood against the parent’s instructions in order to save the child’s life. "

Please answer the following about the ethics of the case (not the legality of what the doctor does or doesn't do), with a total of no more than 8 sentences:

• What rights are being appealed to by the parents and surgeon involved in the case?
• Identify each of these rights as a liberty right or a claim right. Explain.
• Which right or rights do you think should prevail in this case? Explain your answer

Answer 1

The rights which is appealed in this case from the surgeon's side to do beneficence to the child as per their oath irrespective of any hindrance.The rights of the parents is to stand on their religious guidelines and save their child anyhow but strictly avoiding blood transfusion under the right to informed consent.

The surgeon has claim rights by taking responsibility to save a life .The parents has liberty rights to permit or refuse a treatment on behalf of their child under the principle of autonomy.

The prevalent rights in this case is the Right to get or receive appropriate medical care and humane treatment. The child deserves the right to live so essential and appropriate medical intervention is required to save the child.