Legal Aspects Of Health Care Administration 11th Edition by George Pozgar

Exercise 7

Facts
A patient was in the advanced stage of pregnancy when she was admitted through the emergency department of the hospital. At the time of her admission, she signed a standard consent form that included her agreement to have a blood transfusion if necessary. The next day, she was going to have a cesarean section, but she would not consent to a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs. During the course of the delivery, after she had lost a significant amount of blood, it was determined that she needed a transfusion to save her life, but she would not give her consent. Her estranged husband was contacted, and upon his arrival at the hospital, he gave his consent for the transfusion. After the first transfusion, physicians determined that she would need more blood, so they petitioned the circuit court for an emergency hearing to determine whether they could give the transfusion despite the patient's lack of consent.
The trial court decided to allow the hospital to administer blood as they deemed necessary. The patient moved for a rehearing, and the circuit court denied it. The patient then sought review by the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that her federal and state constitutional rights of privacy, self- determination, and religious freedom had been denied.
Issue
Should a competent person have a right to refuse treatment? Did the patient's refusal of a blood transfusion constitute abandonment of her minor children, thus giving the state an interest that outweighed her constitutional rights of privacy and religion?
Holding
A competent person has a right to refuse treatment. Under Florida law, the state cannot intervene in a patient's right to refuse treatment if there is a surviving parent to care for minor children.
Reason
A competent person has the right to choose or refuse medical treatment, including all decisions relevant to his or her health. That right merges with the right to refuse a blood transfusion while exercising one's religious beliefs. A healthcare provider must comply with the patient's wishes unless supported by a court order to do otherwise. Here, the state interest was the protection of the children as innocent third parties. However, in this case, there would have been no abandonment because under Florida law, when there are two living parents, they share equally in the responsibilities of parenting. Had the patient died, her husband would have assumed the care of the children.
What are the competing rights of the state and patient with regard to refusing blood transfusions because of the patient's religious beliefs?