Current Events > The hospital gave my Grandmother a blood transfusion without permission.

(+) Yeah! (+)

My grandmother has had some unexplained deficits in the past couple of months and is no longer able to communicate in any meaningful way. After a hospital stay she had to go to an LTAC for monitored care. The facility called my mother in the wee hours of the morning and told her that my grandmother was spitting up/vomiting and that they would have to send her to the hospital. The hospital then called my mother about an hour ago and told her that because my grandmother's hemoglobin was so low they had to give her blood. Turns out the "spitting up" the LTAC was talking about was blood. She was vomiting blood. They didn't mention that at all. The hospital didn't bother to notify my mother beforehand despite knowing that my mother has control of my grandmother's medical decsions.

My grandmother is very religious and very against any form of blood product. She has a directive that is quite clear. The directive is updated every five years, and has been consistent in saying "no blood" for 60 years. They've had her as a patient before and they know she'd rather die than receive blood. In the past when she could talk she's expressed this to them before and made sure it was on the record.

My mother is now extremely upset because she knows how much my grandmother is against this. When she could speak, and they told her she would die without a transfusion she was still adamant about not taking any blood.

It's an unfortunate situation.

---

It's always unfortunate when people allow religion to override logic and reason.

Tenlaar posted...

It's always unfortunate when people allow religion to override logic and reason.

---

Rial, I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother's situation. I hope she pulls through and recovers.

About the "no transfusion", it's in writing as so they have to follow it. However, about the only thing you can do that comes to mind is simply pursuing a lawsuit as it is a violation of her religion. They screwed up, plain and simple.

---

Doctors should do everything in their power to save their patient. Religion does not negate their hippocratic oath.
---

So_Hajile posted...

Rial, I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother's situation. I hope she pulls through and recovers.

About the "no transfusion", it's in writing as so they have to follow it. However, about the only thing you can do that comes to mind is simply pursuing a lawsuit as it is a violation of her religion. They screwed up, plain and simple.

I'm usually for medical malpractice suits but suing the hospital for saving her life despite her dumb shit religious views is stupid.

Duncanwii posted...

Doctors should do everything in their power to save their patient. Religion does not negate their hippocratic oath.

Even if that goes against the individuals request, whether you agree with it or not for whatever reason?

---

Duncanwii posted...

Doctors should do everything in their power to save their patient. Religion does not negate their hippocratic oath.

Know what, fuck it. Let the ultra religious shorten their lives by rejecting medical help.

She can give it back

---

XxKrebsxX posted...

yikes


---

Duncanwii posted...

Doctors should do everything in their power to save their patient. Religion does not negate their hippocratic oath.

The right of informed adults to refuse medical treatment is pretty much universally recognized.

---

It's truly unfortunate that your grandmother prioritized religion over her own well-being.

I don't know what the right thing to do in this case is; from the practitioner's perspective it might be imperative to provide medical assistance, but to do so against a patient's choice is to violate their rights. It just sucks.

I'll say a prayer for your grandma Rial, and I'm sending you love as always.
---

People have a right to decide which medical procedures they wish to receive. She had a long-standing directive not to perform a blood transfusion and it doesn't matter what her reasoning is. You absolutely should be pursuing legal action

---

well, despite my opinion on religion and the limits it imposes on healthcare, that's a textbook example of breach of directive. call a lawyer.

---

I don't agree with religion but you should absolutely be able to choose which procedures you want to get or not

The posters making fun of her for getting saved despite her wishes are no better than people who say suicide is a sin. Her body, her rules. They don't have to make sense to anyone but her.

---

Wanting to take revenge on a hospital for saving your life by hurting it financially seems perverse.

---

So this a little off topic, but are Jehovah's Witnesses the only ones that have an issue with blood transfusions or do other religious beliefs have an issue with transfusions too?

---

To the people insisting the hospital made the right call, would you agree with a hospital violating a "do not resuscitate" order? If someone is constantly suffering, wants to die and cannot survive unsupported, would you just go "Lol no" and force them to continue a life of misery until death is impossible to prevent?

Where do we draw the line on forcing people to live against their will?

People 100% have the right to refuse treatment and someone wilfully ignoring that in a hospital isn't good. This is a basic thing they teach you right at the start of your training as well.

The issue here would be if they were actually aware of it or if they suddenly had to deal with her and it was either give it to her or let her die, and they weren't aware of any requests she had on refusing treatment.

---

Artemis86 posted...

To the people insisting the hospital made the right call, would you agree with a hospital violating a "do not resuscitate" order? If someone is constantly suffering, wants to die and cannot survive unsupported, would you just go "Lol no" and force them to continue a life of misery until death is impossible to prevent?

Where do we draw the line on forcing people to live against their will?

a DNR is often based on a severely reduced quality of life after a resuscitation. A blood transfusion does not typically carry such risks. Not comparable. Bringing in right to die is also not really comparable and you're only muddying any point you think you're making.

Should've saved that blood for someone more deserving and wanting to live

XxKrebsxX posted...

Know what, fuck it. Let the ultra religious shorten their lives by rejecting medical help.

This, tbqh

---

They probably were worried about getting sued for letting her bleed out in the ER, greedy hospital, when will they learn, you should sue them, teach them a lesson.

_Rinku_ posted...

a DNR is often based on a severely reduced quality of life after a resuscitation. A blood transfusion does not typically carry such risks. Not comparable. Bringing in right to die is also not really comparable and you're only muddying any point you think you're making.

How is it any different? Both are medical directives. In both cases, thr patient will die without intervention. Both will get you sued dor disregarding them. Also, a dnr can include orders such as "do not transfuse blood," so it isnt the risk factor making them different.

You have the right to refuse treatment, regardless of how likely survival is. What's the difference?

Duncanwii posted...

Doctors should do everything in their power to save their patient. Religion does not negate their hippocratic oath.

Do you ever stop up and ask yourself, "Should I try not to be the worst human possible today?", Duncan?

Because you should.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Dammit now your grandma is going to hell!

...but seriously Im glad shes ok despite being put into such a shitty situations where the doctors absolutely shouldnt have given her a blood transfusion. It seems weird to me for her to reject life saving treatment, but Im not her and would never want to force my beliefs on someone.

Speak to King Rial with respect.

Some people just want to go. The hospit is in the wrong

---

I don't usually post like this but i had to say something.

My stepfamily( my dad and stepmom) are Jehovah's witnesses. They don't believe in blood transfusions. My stepmothers mother had to have a blood transfusion. Her hemoglobin was low and she was in generally bad health after finishing some cancer treatments.

She wouldn't get the blood transfusion. She said jehovah would save her or she would die and wait for tribulation. And she died. I was very sad about it. She had always been kind to me even though i wasn't her biological grandchild. I was 14 or 15 at the time and all i could think was all she needed was a transfusion. And she would still be alive.

It really hurt me because i watched her die right in front of me and i kept telling her to go to the dr and she said she didn't need to.

I think it should be up to the person I really do. I mean we all get to make choices about our life. I just don't think i could live with myself if i knew that getting a blood transfusion would keep me here with my family longer, with my child longer, that i wouldn't do it.

---

How is your grandmother doing now?

Hospital is in the wrong

She's an idiot but people are allowed to refuse treatments.

Unless she's contagious or a child it;s up to her what's done to her body
---

Fuck absolutely everyone who tried to shame his grandma for this, judgemental pricks :/

Artemis86 posted...

How is it any different? Both are medical directives. In both cases, the patient will die without intervention. Both will get you sued for disregarding them. Also, a dnr can include orders such as "do not transfuse blood," so it isnt the risk factor making them different.

You have the right to refuse treatment, regardless of how likely survival is. What's the difference?

Literally just explained it: one is based on science, the other is not. Try reading it again and maybe you'll pick up on it this time.

_Rinku_ posted...

Literally just explained it: one is based on science, the other is not. Try reading it again and maybe you'll pick up on it this time.

There's no requirement for the informed decision to refuse treatment to be based in science.

---

Strider102 posted...

Even if that goes against the individuals request, whether you agree with it or not for whatever reason?

So basically, doctors should let people die?

---

I'm curious about what the families thoughts about this are. Including TC

I'm guessing its a "well... this is what she wanted" sorta thing

---

This topic became extremely opinionated quick.

Tough situation though.

---

This poses an interesting ethical problem to me. In what circumstances is someone's beliefs reason enough to withhold lifesaving treatment?

For example, suppose someone believes that cancer doesn't exist, and refuses lifesaving chemo or surgery - not on the basis that they want to avoid that kind of treatment, but simply because they believe it is not necessary? What then...

---

Nazanir posted...

So basically, doctors should let people die?

If the person denies treatment, yeah.

---

Nazanir posted...

So basically, doctors should let people die?

If they are legally capable of making that informed decision, then yes. The right to refuse medical treatment is pretty much universally recognized.

pinky0926 posted...

This poses an interesting ethical problem to me. In what circumstances is someone's beliefs reason enough to withhold lifesaving treatment?

Any circumstance where they have the mental and legal capacity to decide for themselves. It's unethical to deliberately treat a patient against their wishes.

---

Coloradough posted...

you should absolutely be able to choose which procedures you want to get or not

The posters making fun of her for getting saved despite her wishes are no better than people who say suicide is a sin. Her body, her rules. They don't have to make sense to anyone but her

---

I get the hospitals stand point if its in the US considering how sue happy the US is they were/are between a rock and a hard place.

---

pinky0926 posted...

This poses an interesting ethical problem to me. In what circumstances is someone's beliefs reason enough to withhold lifesaving treatment?

For example, suppose someone believes that cancer doesn't exist, and refuses lifesaving chemo or surgery - not on the basis that they want to avoid that kind of treatment, but simply because they believe it is not necessary? What then...

If they are proven to be medically fit and sound of mind, they can refuse treatment. With children though, hospitals can and have overridden parental decisions when it's in the best interest of the child.

Religious reasons or idiocy don't fly when you are making it for someone else.

---

Tenlaar posted...

It's always unfortunate when people allow religion to override logic and reason.

XxKrebsxX posted...

I'm usually for medical malpractice suits but suing the hospital for saving her life despite her dumb shit religious views is stupid.

Duncanwii posted...

Doctors should do everything in their power to save their patient. Religion does not negate their hippocratic oath.

Have fun getting sued into oblivion for violating clearly laid out directives then.
---

This is an egregious and purposeful breach of medical ethics. Sue immediately.

---

Good for the doctors

---

pinky0926 posted...

In what circumstances is someone's beliefs reason enough to withhold lifesaving treatment?

It doesn't even have to be belief. A person is legally allowed to refuse treatment of any kind, even life saving. If they are unconscious or not responsive, it falls to the doctor to decide based on the care required. Directives are supposed to be followed, but a doctors instinct is to save lives.

I suppose it's easier to live with a malpractice suit, than the guilt of knowing you could have done something but didn't.

---

Yeah. If she made it clear and it was known ahead of time, this is cut and dry malpractice. You cannot perform any medical procedure on someone that refuses it if they are in good mental capacity.

The gray area comes around if she was not in the mental state to give this info and the hospital had no records of it. The family can say that's what she'd want but unless one of them had been given power of attorney/medical power i dont think that the hospital would have been able to take their opinion into account

---