“Dark Ages” Decision

In the face of all this, a completely opposite action was taken in July 1971 by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It upheld a lower court’s order that forced a blood transfusion upon an adult of sound mind, twenty-two-year-old Delores Heston, who had been in an accident.

Repeatedly, Miss Heston told her doctor and others that she did not want blood under any circumstances. She even carried a card that said the same thing in case she was unconscious. But her wishes were completely ignored. The lower court ruled for the forced transfusion. An eyewitness, Thomas Keeney, gives this notarized account of what happened as she was forcibly taken to the operating room:

“During the process of moving her onto the bed she kept yelling, ‘Leave me alone leave me alone.’

“When they wheeled Delores down the hall, she was hollering all the way down the hall, ‘Leave me alone.’

“She also hollered for someone to help her, to make them stop. She said repeatedly that they should leave her alone. She saw Bob DiNardo [a friend] standing in the hall when they wheeled her past him and she said to him, ‘Bob, help me.’ She hollered all the way into the operating room.”

Another eyewitness testified that she could be heard resisting even after the operating room doors were closed. But no help was possible, as the court order could be enforced by physical violence, even with police help, if necessary.

Thus, Miss Heston’s body was seized and she was forced to take a medical treatment she absolutely did not want. The law calls a person who seizes and violates a woman a criminal, a rapist. What, then, of doctors and officials who did the same, seizing and violating the body of this woman against her will? The account surely sounds like something out of the “Dark Ages” or a Nazi concentration camp.

True, Miss Heston had been in an accident. Doctors felt she would die without a blood transfusion. But ever so many persons have been told that by doctors. And most of these persons who refused blood survived. Even if they did not, it was still their decision to make.

Surely there are risks​—both ways, as is obvious from the horrible toll of 180,000 injured and dead from hepatitis alone. But the point at issue here is that the individual should have the right to decide which risk he will take, and then bear the consequences.

Inconsistencies

The opinion of the Supreme Court of New Jersey was written by the presiding judge, Joseph Weintraub. It is of interest, then, to read the following item that appeared in the Easton, Pennsylvania, Express about three years ago, on December 3, 1968:

“The Chief Justice of New Jersey strongly criticized hospitals and commercial blood banks Monday for ‘using dirty sources’ of blood for transfusions.

“The criticism from Chief Justice Joseph Weintraub came as he heard arguments in the case of Mrs. Fanny Lou Jackson of Plainfield.

“Mrs. Jackson, who claimed she suffered hepatitis as a result of blood transfusions, is suing Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield and the Eastern Blood Bank in Newark. . . .

“‘You are taking blood from drunkards and derelicts in skid row areas who would not hesitate to lie about their past medical history to get their hands on a few dollars,’ the chief justice said to lawyers for the hospital and blood bank. . . .

“The chief justice said he was especially concerned about the use of blood from narcotics addicts who expose themselves to hepatitis by using needles on themselves.”

But then, in 1971, in the case of Miss Heston, the same judge called blood transfusion “a simple, established procedure”! He should have known better, especially in view of his own testimony three years previously, and in view of what has been written so extensively in medical journals by more competent authorities.

In the opinion, Judge Weintraub also pointed out that ‘attempted suicide is a common-law crime and is now considered a disorderly persons’ offense under New Jersey law.’ But where was there any evidence of attempted suicide? None at all. Miss Heston did not want to die. She did not try to take her own life. She wanted medical attention, even surgery if necessary. She was willing to take medication she approved, including any of several alternatives to blood.

Thus, early in 1971, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that hospitals may be liable for damages when a patient contracts hepatitis from a blood transfusion.