PHIL235_Case_study_kirubel_asrat
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
McGill University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
228
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by ColonelElephantMaster1039
Kirubel Asrat
40153970
PHIL 235
Biomedical ethics
Case Study Treatment for Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Adults and Children
March 30
th
, 2023
1
The focus of this case study will be on a particular case titled “
Treatment for Jehovah’s
Witnesses: Adult and Children
”. This case discusses the ethical problem that doctors encounter
with patients with certain ethical beliefs. Jehovah’s witness is a Christian religion that restraints
any blood transfusion from external or even sometimes their own bodies. It leads to situations
where a patient life can be at risk die to its ethical belief. In this particular case, Georgette
Mallette is a 57 year old wife that was involved in a car accident that resulted her husband death.
She was in a critical state and in order to save the her, Dr Shulmans needed to transfuse blood.
He later discovers that the patient is a Jehovah witness Christian. Although the blood transfusion
was against Mallette beliefs. Dr Shulmans decided to proceed with the treatment. Now, was Dr.
Shulmans right? Is Mallette belief should be respected despite the potential consequences? Dr.
Shulmans had the purest intentions of following his duty as a Doctor which was to save his
patients life by all means. It is his moral right to perform his duty as a Doctor. In the other hand,
Georgette is a Jehovah’s witness believer and devoted her life to practise this religious. The
Doctor shouldn’t interfere with one’s ethical beliefs. As it goes against Moral right of Georgette.
Doctor shouldn’t perform the blood transfusion although it may cause consequences. We will
discuss the opposing arguments Georgette with factual statements and ethical moral facts. Looking at Dr.Shulman’s perspective of Georgette’s case, we can clearly understand that Dr.
Shulman’s intentions was to save Georgette life despite her ethical beliefs because he was
exercising his duty as a medical doctor. “Dr. Shulman, determined that she was suffering from
shock due to blood loss and that a blood transfusion was necessary to save her life.
(Fisher,Russel,Browne Burkholder,2013). As a doctor, he is in the right to diagnose his patient
and perform the necessary treatment to provide the best medical outcome. We can argue that Dr.
2
Shulman was following his hypocritical oath as a medical Doctor. Every medical doctor must
take an Oath that assures that they must act to the best outcome of a patient. The Oath goes as
follows : “
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I
consider for the benefit of my patients , and abstain from whatever is deleterious and
mischievous
.”(Harvard Medical School,2020). Dr. Shulman did respect his Oath by giving
Georgette the blood transfusion which would result in the best outcome. We can compare a
similar case with a patient with signs of delirium. A patient manifested signs of delirium only
when he was on medication, his brother asked the nurse not to give any pain killer because it
would let the entry of evil spirit. The nurse believed this belief and withhold the pain killer which
led the patient. This decision led the patient to exercise oath with negative outcome. The ethics
consolation said that even if based on their traditional religious beliefs could not override the
patients own request for pain medication that would relieve his suffering. (Fisher,Russel,Browne
Burkholder,page 85,2013). We can compare this situation to the Georgette case. Her belief would
be of not proceeding with the blood transfusion would potentially lead her to further suffering
and potential death. Similarly with the case of delirium, the outcome was negative. Looking at Georgette perspective, we can understand that she, as a Jehovah’s witness, has been
violated from her personal belief. Her belief consists of to withhold any form of blood
transfusion despite the medical consequences she could face. It is against God’s will to receive
blood. Mr. Justice Robins, judge for the appeal against Dr.Shulman, explains that a doctor is not
free to disregard a patient’s advance instructions and that Georgette was carrying a legitimate
advance directive. Meaning that by law, Dr Shulman violated Georgette moral right to not
proceed with the treatment by going against her own will. The card present on Georgette belongs
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
was a valid motive not to proceed with the treatment, but Dr. Shulman proceeded anyway. The
consequences that follow her beliefs is under Georgette accountability, Dr, Shulman did not have
permission to use his judgment in the eyes of Georgette and the court.
I believe that Dr. Shulman’s treatment on Georgette was ethically right. He respected his oath
and act to the client’s best interest. Now, the best interest of Georgette is debatable. Weather it is
to live unhappy or to die in peace. Medically speaking, Dr. Shulman treated the patient with the
best survival outcome. Understandably, Dr, Shulman could have found a way to have consent
from a third party if possible, to proceed with the treatment regardless of the card identification
found. In critical situations, the card only with no third-party consent is insufficient to go against
the oath. Arguably as mentioned, Georgette has fundamental ethical beliefs and proceeding with
the treatment ultimately goes against her will. However, I believe that medical treatment with the
intent of the best possible outcome should be the right option.
To conclude, in the case “Treatment for Jehovah’s Witnesses: Adult and Children”, the ethical
practise of Dr. Shulman performed on Georgette Mallette involves the fundamental ethical right
of self belief regarding medical treatments. It shows a scenario that challenges the ethical
reasoning of what can be the fundamental right. One can argue, that Dr. Shulman respected his
hypocritical oat by treating every patient with the best medical intentions. Also, based on other
cases, following instructions of a patient with a certain belief ultimately has negative medical
outcomes as mentioned earlier. Contrarily, Georgette right to her beliefs was violated and Dr.
Shulman went against her will by treating her with blood transfusion. I believe that both sides
have strong arguments and should be equally considered. Ones belief can’t be ignored and
should be taken into consideration during any medical practise. However, I strongly believe that
4
doctors have the responsibility to seek for the best possible outcome by carefully asses any given
ethical constraints Reference
Robert H. Shmerling, M. D. (2020, June 22). First, do no harm. Harvard Health. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/first-do-no-harm-201510138421
Browne, A., Burkholder, L., Fisher, J., & Russell, J. (2021). Biomedical ethics: A Canadian focus. Langara College.
5