A landmark legal action over a Dublin maternity hospital's decision to administer a life-saving blood transfusion to a member of the Jehovah's Witness community has opened before the High Court. The woman contends she gave no consent to the blood transfusion and was entitled to refuse consent because of her religion.
The action, being heard by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, raises important issues relating to the constitutional rights to life, to freedom of conscience and to free practice of religion. Expected to last several weeks, the proceedings have been brought by the Coombe Women's Hospital in Dublin against the woman, who can only be identified as Ms K, and the State.
Ms K, who is from the Democratic Republic of Congo, was given a blood transfusion by court order after she lost an estimated 80 per cent of blood while giving birth to a baby boy in the hospital on September 21st, 2006.
She had earlier refused the transfusion as it was against her religious beliefs. However, the hospital secured an emergency court order permitting it to give the transfusion after arguing it believed the woman would die otherwise.
In the action, the hospital claims that, by virtue of the right to life protections in the Constitution, it is under a general duty to protect and safeguard the woman's right to life and her personal rights generally. The hospital also contends the State is constitutionally obliged to protect the family life of the woman and her child and to safeguard the constitutional rights of the child, which includes the right to be nurtured and reared by his mother.
The hospital contends Ms K's constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and free practice of religion do not extend to enabling her to decline appropriate medical treatment. It would be contrary to public order and morality if Ms K, by invoking her constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, could be permitted to place her life in immediate danger by declining routine medical treatment, the hospital argues.
Ms K denies the claims. In a counter-claim, she contends the administration of the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse that treatment. By giving her the transfusion, which she had refused, the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person and she is entitled to damages, she also claims.
Opening the case yesterday, Gerard Hogan SC, for the hospital, said Ms K, then a 24-year-old asylum seeker who spoke little English, had suffered a major haemorrhage after she gave birth at the hospital at about 9.45am on September 21st, 2006.
Ms K had presented to a number of hospitals on previous occasions and all the information from those admissions was that she was Catholic and that she had no relations in Ireland, counsel said. He said she gave the name of a friend as her next of kin, and that person was present with her at the birth.
Evidence would be given that Ms K had indicated to a staff member at the Coombe after her baby was born that she had converted to the Jehovah's Witness faith some six weeks previously, Mr Hogan said.
As a result of her son's birth it was estimated that she lost as much as one litre of blood in just a few minutes. Medical staff felt a transfusion was required in order to save her life. Her inability to speak English meant that all the instructions were being translated through her friend, who was also a Jehovah's Witness.
It was through her friend that the staff were informed that Ms K was a Jehovah's Witness and that the transfusion of blood or blood products was contrary to her religious beliefs, Mr Hogan said.
The medical staff became concerned whether Ms K's capacity to refuse the treatment was a fully informed one. They tried to engage the services of a translator but were unable to get one. Medical staff, including a number of consultants and the master of the Coombe, Dr Chris Fitzpatrick, had assessed her condition.
At one point, Ms K, who was in shock after the loss of blood, told Dr Fitzpatrick that her blood levels would increase if she was given "Coca Cola and tomatoes". After considering all the options an order was secured by the hospital in the High Court which allowed the hospital to administer the transfusion, Mr Hogan said.