Case Law-Werth vs Taylor
According to the case study, the case ended up the way I expected. I expected to see the court ruling in favor of Dr. Taylor. The course awarded disposition in favor of the doctor because he performed an emergency blood transfusion for the client’s best interest. In this case, Cindy was about to die because of too much blood loss and Dr. Taylor needed to act quickly and perform blood transfusions even without the client’s consent.
As you read this article, you may be interested in other Nursing papers posted here.
Patients are often faced with a decision on whether or not to put themselves through medical cases. Before patients undergo any medical procedure, they have the right to informed consent. They do have the right to refuse treatment considering the outcomes of those medical procedures (Barrera et al., 2016). However, in the case of an emergency, patients do not have the right to informed consent, and in this instance, physicians are allowed to perform any medical treatment or procedure for the best interest of the client (Werth & Rogers, 2005). Considering this fact, there is no way Cindy could have assured herself that she would not receive any blood as there was a need for an emergency blood transfusion to be performed to save the patient’s life.
In the case the anesthesiologist had interviewed Cindy and told the patient the consequences of refusing a blood transfusion, it could still have not made any difference. As per the case study, the patient was a true believer of her religion and was not ready to go against the religion’s beliefs and attitudes. Cindy’s religion believed that it was a sin to receive blood from others.
The consent in an emergency where a physician may be required to act quickly or the patient may lose their life is referred to as a substituted consent. This is a type of consent that allows a physician to make a decision that a patient in their right mind would have made
Barrera, A. Z., Dunn, L. B., Nichols, A., Reardon, S., & Muñoz, R. F. (2016). Getting It “Right” Ensuring Informed Consent for an Online Clinical Trial. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(4), 291-298. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1556264616668974
Werth, Jr, J. L., & Rogers, J. R. (2005). Assessing for impaired judgment as a means of meeting the “duty to protect” when a client is a potential harm-to-self: Implications for clients making end-of-life decisions. Mortality, 10(1), 7-21. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13576270500030966