[ozmidwifery] High Court makes landmark transfusion order - Ireland

[Tracy Donegan]

I don’t even know where to begin with this………..she is mentally competent and has refused a life saving intervention and is to be restrained if she refuses….what is to stop the hospital enforcing a cesarean…or other intervention.......   Can any midwives on this list help me understand how a woman who has reportedly lost 80% of her blood could possibly be debating this issue  - wouldn’t she be unconscious ?   Tracy     Last Updated: 21 September 2006 High Court makes landmark transfusion order In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the High Court has ordered that the Coombe Women's Hospital in Dublin can give a blood transfusion to a seriously ill woman who is refusing the treatment. The court was told there is a real risk the woman may die today if she does not get the blood transfusion. The 23-year-old woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, identified only as 'Ms K', gave birth to a baby boy this morning but subsequently suffered a massive haemorrhage.   She has lost up to 80% of her blood but is refusing to have a transfusion because she is a Jehovah's Witness. The baby boy is described as being 'in good shape'. Senior Counsel, Gerard Hogan, for the hospital, told the court the hospital respected the woman's conscientious and ethical reasons for refusing the treatment but he said there was a probability she would die in a matter of hours unless the transfusion and associated medical procedures were authorised by the court. Mr Justice Henry Abbott said he accepted that 'Ms K' was 'compos mentis' and if she were brought to court on a stretcher, she would oppose the application.    But he said he would override the clear will of the mother for a number of reasons. He said a newborn child had come into the world and had no other relatives that were known of, anywhere in the State to care for it and provide physical, emotional and spiritual nurture.  He said the interests of the child were paramount. The judge also said that when faced with such a dilemma, he believed he should err on the side of preserving life. 'If life is preserved,' he said, 'the arguments can be made at a later date.' He also ordered that the hospital should take appropriate steps by way of restraint or similar actions if 'Ms K' resists the blood transfusion. The courts have previously made similar orders in respect of children whose parents have refused blood transfusions on their behalf.  But it is believed that this is the first time the High Court has made such an order against an adult who is refusing treatment for him or herself.