User:Theleekycauldron/Werth v. Taylor

+

← Previous revision Revision as of 23:44, 4 April 2026 Line 9: Line 9:

== Law and legal proceedings == == Law and legal proceedings == Many states have recognized that when a doctor performs a procedure on a person without their consent, they are committing the [[tort]] of battery. In emergency situations, however, there is not always time to obtain consent before performing a lifesaving procedure – but this also does not mean that patients cannot refuse lifesaving procedures.{{sfn|Strasser|1999|pp=999–1000}} As an [[Ohio District Courts of Appeals|Ohio appeals court]] stated, without that caveat to the emergency exception, "a physician could circumvent the express wishes of a terminal patient by waiting to act until the patient was comatose and critical".<ref>{{harvnb|Strasser|1999|p=1008}}. Quoting {{Cite court|litigants=Estate of Leach v. Shapiro|vol=13|reporter=Ohio App. 3d|opinion=393, 396–397|date=1984}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of Pennsylvania]] considered a case similar to this one, except that the patient only had a [[blood transfusion refusal card]] from the [[Watchtower Society]]. There, the court ruled that the patient's refusal was invalid because "where there is an emergency calling for an immediate decision, nothing less than a fully conscious contemporaneous decision by the patient will be sufficient to override evidence of medical necessity".<ref>{{harvnb|Midgen|Braen|pp=817, 820}}; {{harvnb|Griffith|1992|pp=382–383}}. Quoting {{cite court |litigants=In re Estate of Dorone |vol=517 |reporter=Pa. |opinion=3, 9 |year=1987}}</ref> Many states have recognized that when a doctor performs a procedure on a person without their consent, they are committing the [[tort]] of battery. In emergency situations, however, there is not always time to obtain consent before performing a lifesaving procedure – but this also does not mean that patients cannot refuse lifesaving procedures.{{sfn|Strasser|1999|pp=999–1000}} As an [[Ohio District Courts of Appeals|Ohio appeals court]] stated, without that caveat to the emergency exception, "a physician could circumvent the express wishes of a terminal patient by waiting to act until the patient was comatose and critical".<ref>{{harvnb|Strasser|1999|p=1008}}. Quoting {{Cite court|litigants=Estate of Leach v. Shapiro|vol=13|reporter=Ohio App. 3d|opinion=393, 396–397|date=1984}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of Pennsylvania]] considered a case similar to this one, except that the patient only had a [[blood transfusion refusal card]] from the [[Watchtower Society]]. There, the court ruled that the patient's refusal was invalid because "where there is an emergency calling for an immediate decision, nothing less than a fully conscious contemporaneous decision by the patient will be sufficient to override evidence of medical necessity".<ref>{{harvnb|Midgen|Braen|pp=817, 820|1998}}; {{harvnb|Griffith|1992|pp=382–383}}. Quoting {{cite court |litigants=In re Estate of Dorone |vol=517 |reporter=Pa. |opinion=3, 9 |year=1987}}</ref>

== Reaction == == Reaction ==