ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, December 1, 1996 TAG: 9612030133
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: the back pew
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
There may be no more agonizing trial for any family than having to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of a loved one.
Fortunately, for most of us, it is a private matter - something we face in consultation with religious advisors, doctors and friends, as well as family members. We comfort each other, reassure each other, confirm and sustain each other.
On rare occasions, however, these "family" decisions move into the public domain. Such a case caught our attention in Roanoke recently.
Doris McDaniel, a Jehovah's Witness, repeatedly indicated verbally and in writing that, in conformity with Witness belief, she did not want a blood transfusion under any circumstances in connection with surgery she was about to undergo.
Complications led to a second surgery that took McDaniel to the brink of death. Medical opinion was that a blood transfusion might save her life - or might have no effect on her condition at all.
Given her adamant religious convictions against the procedure, however, the hospital balked at administering blood. It refused to act even after McDaniels' closest family members - who are not Jehovah's Witnesses - insisted that she had indicated to them at the last hour that she would accept a transfusion in that life-threatening situation.
Judge Robert Doherty decided to release the hospital from its obligation to comply with the patient's written instructions, based on his conviction that "family members are experts in family matters" and deserved the benefit of the doubt in a situation in which the patient could no longer speak for herself.
The hospital then went ahead with the transfusions, though it did consider appealing the ruling.
McDaniel was recuperating at the time this column was written.
Many of us who followed her story in the news could understand the agony the family must have gone through. Few of us would want to violate the conscience of a loved one. On the other hand, when the hard choices come, it is extremely difficult to forgo any action with even a slim
possibility of extending the life of a loved one.
Though it raises serious, extremely difficult questions about just how effective advanced directives to physicians will be in the future, Doherty's decision might have made Solomon proud. In effect, it released the hospital from responsibility for following those written directions, and placed that responsibility in the hands of McDaniel's family.
If the family was right that McDaniel had changed her mind, its members will always know they did all they could for her in compliance with her wishes. If they were wrong, the family will have to face the consequences of that.
There are all kinds of corollary questions raised in this matter. Does this ruling mean hospitals will face increased liability threats from family members of patients whose advanced directives are followed? How can a hospital, a court or society consistently be sure that the patient's will is being complied with? Does this mean family members should have veto power over an individual's medical choices?
And then there is the continuing prickly question of how society is to accommodate the religious beliefs of its members.
After the court left the matter of McDaniel's treatment in the hands of family members, the family's lawyer was quoted as saying:
"I think it's a question of balancing the value of life against a particularly irrational religious belief."
In fact, that was neither the legal nor ethical question at all. Not in this case.
The First Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two provisions, or clauses, of that first part of the First Amendment continue to be difficult ideals to live up to.
The "free-exercise" clause is the one we usually call on to protect our right to worship - or not - as we please. It protects the majority as well as the minority, the religious and irreligious, the popular and unpopular, the rational as well as the "irrational."
As with most rights, the courts - and popular opinion - have concluded that this one is not absolute.
Parents may not engage in child sacrifice even if they believe a God or gods demand it. The courts have said third parties may insist on modern scientific medical care for extremely ill children even when their parents want to forgo that in favor of a prayer-only approach to healing. The torture of animals in religious rituals is forbidden. Religious institutions must comply with many laws regulating public safety or interest - such as building codes and zoning requirements.
So, while the guaranteed "free exercise" of religion does not mean that anyone can do anything in the name of religious belief, it generally gives wide latitude to competent adults to act on their religious beliefs.
Jehovah's Witnesses are among the religious minorities in this country who have had to fight the hardest to establish their rights to the "free exercise" of their religion, especially when it was unpopular with the majority.
For instance, refusing to pledge their allegiance to any secular authority, Witness children were mocked and abused and punished for years before the courts defended their right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance or salute to the flag in public schools.
On that and other religious-freedom fronts, all of us have the Witnesses to thank for some important defenses of our "free-exercise" rights.
As we approach the most widely celebrated religious season of the year, it is interesting that an officer of a court of law would raise the issue of whether courts should decide to overrule the exercise of religious beliefs they find "particularly irrational."
Would "irrationality" include belief in a miraculous lamp that managed to stay lit for a week despite the fact that only a day's worth of oil was available?
Would that include belief in the virginal conception of a human being whose followers claimed that he also was God?
Would that include belief that anyone could be raised from the dead?
Would that include belief that prayer can heal?
Would that include belief that there is a God?
One could argue that any or all of those are "particularly irrational." It's an area most of us - including judges - would just as soon the courts get dragged into as infrequently as possible.
Any of us who adhere to any religious beliefs - as well as those who adhere to no religious beliefs whatsoever - could find ourselves the victim of a system that argues that those positions are "particularly irrational."
With any luck, the legal and family ramifications of the case of Doris McDaniel won't be carried that far, the protestations of her family's lawyer notwithstanding.
LENGTH: Long : 119 linesby CNB