Clinical Scenario -
4: Consent to healthcare treatment-blood transfusion.
Rebecca is knocked unconscious while being assaulted
and robbed of her handbag. She is rushed to hospital
by ambulance. Rebecca has sustained head injuries
and a stab wound and has lost a lot of blood so the
casualty doctor arranges an urgent blood transfusion,
believing this to be necessary to save her life and
therefore in her best interests. When her relatives
are finally located, they say that Rebecca’s
beliefs meant that she would have refused all blood
products.
• Did the Doctor behave appropriately?
•
Did the Doctor act against Rebecca’s
best interests?
Discussion
There was no prior indication of who Rebecca
was, or what her beliefs were, as her handbag
had been stolen. The doctor therefore
had reasonable grounds for believing that his
action was in his patient’s best interests
and so was justified in taking that action. If,
however, a document had been available that
confirmed her religion and her refusal of blood
products in any circumstance, the doctor would
have been acting unlawfully if he or she had
authorised a blood transfusion when Rebecca’s
wishes were clear. This type of “blanket” ADRT
maybe challenged as it did not anticipate these
particular circumstances. Here the doctor
was the decision maker, even though the nurses
were involved in the treatment.
Source: Adapted from Code of Practice 2007 |
|
|
|
|
 |
