ABSTRACT
A middle-aged woman fell down the stairs of a bus. She suffered fractures of her femur and tibia and was awaiting open fixation of these bones. Her surgeon predicted a 50% chance of the patient (D) requiring blood product transfusion. It transpired that D and her mother were both Jehovah's Witnesses. The mother was a committed Witness, and she did not believe that it was in her daughter's best interests to have a blood transfusion, since this was contrary to the belief of their religious group. It was for this reason, that the hospital applied to the Court of Protection to seek a declaration that it would be lawful to transfuse if need be. The judgement in no way rides roughshod over the respect clinicians must give to the refusal of blood by any adult with capacity. But it does focus attention on the extent to which an incapacitated patient understands the implications of refusing blood products.
