[Are we legally allowed to administer blood for lifesaving to a patient who refuses it?].
We surveyed the literatures and discussed the legal issues whether we should administer blood for lifesaving to a patient who refuses it. The valid refusal of the transfusion requires the distinct intention of a competent patient. Minors below fifteen years of age are incompetent and their parents make a substituted judgement. Anyone must not give priority to the parents' belief and blood ought to be transfused if necessary for the children's benefits. We could evade liability for withholding blood only when we manage an operation arranged to succeed without blood transfusion, undergoing the sufficient treatments to avoid the risks, as well as on the basis of the valid refusal of a patient. The release deed and the intervention of hospital directors, ethics committees and courts are invalid for the immunity from liability. Anesthesiologists have to take the responsibility on themselves of administering blood or not. A statute law should be established to define what is a patient's valid intention and who is responsible.
Shimasaki
H
H
Department of Anesthesiology, Kitano Hospital, Osaka.
Yamamoto
H
H
Magaribuchi
T
T
Urabe
N
N
Shimasaki
A
A
D000776:Anesthesiology; D001803:Blood Transfusion / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007564:Japan; D016365:Liability, Legal; D016743:Mental Competency; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*