Biblical Verse of Genesis 9:4: A Study of Blood Transfusions in JWs - Paper Example

Introduction

This paper explores the Biblical verse of Genesis 9: 4 that delves into the debate of blood transfusion among certain religious groups, specifically the Jehovah's Witness (JW). The verse states, “But you shall not consume a live flesh, that is, with its blood” (Gen 9: 4). The perception Jehovah’s Witnesses have on some medical procedures like blood transfusion often puts doctors in awkward medicolegal situations. They are famous for their denial to get blood transfusions, which may prompt different challenges for clinical professionals engaged in their treatment and management (Chand, Subramanya & Rao, 2014).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Different Beliefs

As mentioned earlier, Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that it is sinful to receive or consume blood and, hence, they decline blood transfusions, regularly regardless of whether it is their blood. The obliging approval of blood transfusions by members of Jehovah’s Witnesses has sometimes prompted their ejection and frozen out from the community if their actions are revealed (Chand, Subramanya & Rao, 2014). Notwithstanding, a minority of Jehovah's Witnesses do not concur that the Bible disallows blood transfusions, and will, therefore, approve the process. Some Jehovah's Witnesses may likewise accept that it is okay to get blood plasma divisions or blood reinfusion. It, therefore, becomes important to ask and consider the views of all members of the JW community before treatment given the different convictions on blood transfusion amongst the members. The following sections discuss a few examples of possible scenarios.

A competent adult patient capable of accepting or rejecting treatment

Today, most mature democracies worldwide have Constitutions that offer protection to a patient’s right to bodily ethics and sovereignty. Thus, a grown-up Jehovah's Witness is entitled, as far as his/her country’s Constitution is concerned, to reject a resuscitative blood transfusion. On account of elective treatment or medical procedure, a health expert who thinks that a blood transfusion might be vital may decline to treat or perform a medical procedure on a JW patient who has declined to agree to a blood transfusion being offered, as long as the expert is not already engaged in the progressing treatment of such a patient. A solitary decline to proceed with the treatment could be seen as a breach of contract.

A health expert who has concluded that he does not want to engage in the treatment or operation of a JW patient in situations where he has not been approved to transfuse blood, ought to disclose to the patient why treatment/medical procedure is being declined (Hubbard, Waters, & Yazer, 2015). The possible dangers and ramifications for the patient in case of no treatment or surgery, just as alternative treatment procedures could be life-threatening. In doing as such, it is reasonable to counsel a senior partner concerning other conceivable treatment choices. Normally, the expert would need to refer such a patient to another clinical professional, in case the patient wants to continue with the treatment or surgery plan although he or she understands the dangers he will be exposing himself to by denying a blood transfusion.

If expert consent to shun offering a blood transfusion while treating or potentially performing a medical procedure on a JW patient, the patient ought to be advised concerning the dangers and likely outcomes of not accepting a blood transfusion. The advice should also cover other treatment alternatives and their dangers and possible results. The patient ought to be asked to sign a patient release form, exculpating the clinical specialist from all risk spilling out of an inability to administer blood products.

In case of an emergency, a health expert may be forced to treat a Jehovah’s Witness patient who still denies a blood transfusion yet he or she needs the treatment with or without transfusing blood (Hubbard, Waters, & Yazer, 2015). In such a case, the outcomes of not accepting a blood transfusion should still be clarified to the patient if possible. Importantly, all conversations with the patient and partners ought to be deliberately archived by the professional in his or her notes.

An incompetent adult patient unable to accept or reject treatment

As far as the ANA code of ethics for nurses is concerned, in case a grown-up JW patient cannot agree to or deny the organization of a blood transfusion, an individual mandated to represent the patient may agree to or reject the blood transfusion for the benefit of the patient (Olson & Stokes, 2016). Olson and Stokes (2016) add that if nobody had been approved by the patient, intermediary assent or refusal ought to be acquired from the patient's mate or accomplice, a parent, a grandparent, a grown-up youngster or a sibling or sister (in this particular order). If all of these reject a blood transfusion in the interest of the patient, the clinical professional should get a court order if he or she is convinced that a transfusion is necessary.

Furthermore, the ANA code of ethics directs that if a Jehovah’s Witness patient had given prior notice of his or her unwillingness to get a blood transfusion, this decision should be respected and maintained (Olson & Stokes, 2016). As long as the choice in the mandate is pertinent to the current conditions and there is no motivation to accept that the patient has changed his/her mind. Regardless of whether an "advance mandate" has been given by the patient, it is as yet fitting to get intermediary assent/refusal from the patient's next of kin is listed order (Olson & Stokes, 2016). If the contacted next of kin agree to a blood transfusion (in repudiation of the patient's mandate), it is prudent to get a court order before directing the transfusion.

In an emergency, the patient’s wishes should be upheld if a court order cannot be secured on time (Olson & Stokes, 2016). However, it is reasonable to acquire insurance, where conceivable, from more than one relative, affirming precisely what the patient’s wishes. Finally, when confronted by a situation where a grown-up JW patient cannot assent and uncertainty looms on whether or not a blood transfusion will be done, it is fitting to get lawful counsel, as the conditions of every individual case should be considered before a choice is made.

Medical Ethics using the Biblical Model

Christians have faith in the heavenly motivation, uprightness, and final authority of the Bible as God’s Word (Chitty Kittrell, 2004). In essence, the Bible should be the reference point of all Christian medical ethics. We follow the command and example of Jesus by asserting the power of the Word. Moreover, we accept that in His Word, God has benevolently furnished us with the standards important to influence our ethical decision choices. Ethical issues such as the sensitiveness of Jehovah’s Witnesses to blood transfusion treatment can be derived from principles found in the Bible since they are not taught.

Also, our moral viewpoints are guided by the Holy Spirit and enhanced by the lessons of Christian convention, ethical thinking, and clinical experience. As explained earlier, the conditions of each case must be considered to find the ethical issues raised, yet we do not acknowledge such ways of thinking as moral relativism, situational morals, utilitarianism, or mindless legalism. God expressed that the weightier matters of the law are equity, leniency, and confidence in Him.

Finally, the respectability of good choices lays on the reasonable utilization of biblical principles. We recognize, be that as it may, that earnest Christians may vary in their translation and use of these standards. Patients or their supporters, families, and clinicians are ethically liable for their activities. On the other hand, we, as nurses, are answerable to God since we care for our fellow ailing human beings.

Recommendations and Conclusion

A health expert should advise the next of kin of a JW patient that while he/she will attempt to regard their strict perspectives if a blood transfusion is needed to spare the patient’s life, it will be regulated without their assent, except if they get a court order disallowing it (Chand, Subramanya & Rao, 2014). Such conversations ought to be led as quickly as possible with the goal of providing reasonable time to the patient’s next of kin wishing to get legal counsel or a second medical opinion. Since there might be some contradiction about whether or not an elective clinical treatment to a blood bonding is restoratively satisfactory, it would be fitting for the specialist to discuss the agreeableness of the proposed elective treatment with a senior partner, and record in his notes the perspectives on the consulted associate.

Indeed, all conversations by a specialist with a patient, a patient's agent, intermediary, or the patient's parent (whichever is suitable) should occur well ahead of time of treatment/medical procedure (if conceivable). This is to bear the cost of not just the parent(s) or patient or intermediary time to get legal counsel or a second treatment opinion, yet also, the expert a chance to engage a senior partner, look for lawful guidance or approach the Department of Social Development, if the patient is a child (Chand, Subramanya & Rao, 2014).

In my experience, some JW patients may wish to agree to get blood transfusions yet are hesitant to concur thereto inspired by a paranoid fear of being shunned by their religious colleagues. To guarantee that patients are not acting under pressure, clinical experts would be all around encouraged to guarantee the patient that the idea of any treatment regulated (counting blood transfusions) is classified and won't be revealed by the specialist to any outsiders and that outsiders can't access emergency clinic records without the assent of the patient. It is besides prudent to have all conversations about conceivable blood transfusions with the patient secretly, to guarantee tolerant privacy, and to permit them to uncover their desires without pressure from family or the church network.

When treating a minor of a JW family, health experts must be alert and keen to likely complex family/community treatment issues. It might be that although the guardians can't transparently be believed to urge their youngster to agree to a blood bonding, or assent for their kid's benefit, they would invite the State Department of Social Development agreeing in the interest of their kid as well as the expert being approved, regarding the Children's Act, to disregard their refusal to agree to a blood bonding for the benefit of their kid (Chand, Subramanya & Rao, 2014). This act will encourage timely health expert decision-making if detected early.

References

Chand, N. K., Subramanya, H. B., & Rao, G. V. (2014). Management of patients who refuse blood transfusion. Indian journal of anesthesia, 58(5), 658. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260316/

Chitty Kittrell, K. (2004). Professional Nursing: Concepts and Challenges.

Hubbard, R., Waters, J. H., & Yazer, M. H. (2015). Heterogeneity in blood product acceptance among antenatal patients of the Jehovah's Witness faith. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 126(5), 974-977. Retrieved from https://cdn.journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2015/11000/Heterogeneity_in_Blood_Product_Acceptance_Among.10.aspx

Olson, L. L., & Stokes, F. (2016). The ANA code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements: Resource for nursing regulation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 7(2), 9-20. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2155825616310730