Question

This quiz is based on a real life case from Western Canada. The issue here is the nature of consent as a defense to intentional torts and negligence.

The subject is Commercial Law.

Marjorie, a middle-aged entrepreneur, was involved in a terrible, single-car accident. When she was taken to a nearby hospital, the attending nurse discovered that Majorie’s purse carried a card that contained the following statement: “NOTICE: I am a Jehovah’s Witness. Because of my religious beliefs, I do not consent, under any circumstances, to any emergency medical procedures that involve blood transfusions.” The nurse brought the card to the attention of the emergency room physician, Dr. Curtis. He immediately appreciated the dilemma. If he failed to perform a blood transfusion, Marjorie certainly would die within an hour. But if he proceeded with the transfusion, he would be overriding her religious beliefs. How should Dr. Curtis proceed? Aside from moral considerations, what should he be told regarding the law? Can he be held liable, under an intentional tort, for performing an operation that will save Marjorie’s life?

Answer 1

answer-

The duty of every doctor is to save their patient's life. Under law, If doctor refused to save a patient's life even if doctor could save then it would be like murder and illegal.

In this situation, Dr. Curtis should proceed with transfusion even if there is a notice that says no consent to Blood transfusion. It is ethical and moral duty of doctor to save their patient's life. They can not rely on mere of piece of paper and sit idle and not save the life of patient.

If there is liability of tort under law on doctor then Doctor will not be held liable under any tort of law because Intentional tort or negligence tort is proved when a person breaches their duty of care intentionally or negligencly and caused harm to others.

In this case, If doctor saves life of Patient by tranfusion then doctor is not causing any damage or harm. Doctor will be held liable under tort if he refused to perform his duty and not save Marjories life.When there is no harm and damage then there is no tort of any kind.