Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal History Blogs -> Common Lawyer

Legal History

: Common Lawyer

Jehovah's Witless

By G.C. Seabourne

It?s not often that the (formerly soaraway) Sun has a front page of CommonLawyer interest, but today,  I saw in the newsagent?s that it had something on the story of a young Jehovah?s Witness mother who had refused a life-saving blood transfusion after giving birth to twins. It?s in the Times too, but the Sun gives it a front page position and a photo. Well, the deceased, Ema Gough of Shropshire, was 22 and quite hot.

Now the law on this in England (and, no doubt in much of the common law world) is long-setttled. She can refuse it. She has to be allowed to refuse it ? however wrong, or silly, or unmaternal (the Sun was going for the ?she?s abandoned her kids? angle, it seemed) we might think it. It seems to be something non-JWs find very hard to take, and I suppose it?s the starkest sort of consent issue in medical law. It?s not an old and suffering person saying enough is enough, it?s a young, otherwise healthy person, being offered what, for most of us, is an entirely welcome medical intervention, which could help bring back normal health, and saying no. And of course other groups have had an objection to medical treatment ? like the Christian ?Scientists? ? and, my personal favourites, the Peculiar People ? but they pose less of a problem (except when they are refusing treatment for their children) because they wouldn?t willingly be involved with hospitals at all.
    I find the Jehovah?s Witness refusal of blood transfusions a very tough issue. I know the consequences of overriding people?s choices are very very bad, but it?s hard to accept that refusal based on clear misunderstanding of Biblical passages is truly informed. Who could really think that scriptures writtten before any knowledge of the circulation of the blood could have had anything to say about, or against, blood transfusions? I think those bits they always refer to might just be more concerned with cannibalism, and Jewish kosher killing of animals. It makes me see the point of keeping the Bible for the study and interpretation of properly educated priests.
    A quick search of my usual sources suggests there?s some interesting work to be done on JWs in W.W. II ? they come up as causing difficulties in Nazi Germany ( so, obviously, some plus points there) the UK and Australia (annoyed that they didn?t support the war). Interesting talent to piss off both sides then. And there was a cunning attempt to get out of national service in the UK by a Scottish JW member who argued they were pretty much all ministers within the group, and so exempt ? Walsh v Lord Advocate (1956). This argument had been tried before, during WW.II, and failed then as well.
    They come to the door every now and then, the JWs, usually in pairs, and usually sad enough specimens to push away all thoughts of logical debate. The young girls (they?re always female, aren?t they?) are particularly sad and downtrodden looking. Straight out of Oranges are not the Only Fruit, only without the sex. I?ve never yet managed to ask them what they actually do when the person who opens the door is dressed in obviously Islamic costume, so I don?t suppose I?ll manage to ask them whether they are entirely confident that this poor young woman didn?t waste her chance of a good and useful life.

Common Law Wife
    

Full post as published by Common Lawyer on November 05, 2007 (boomark / email).