Attorneys for Georgetown Hospital applied1 for an emergency writ at 4:00 P.M., S
ID: 354010 • Letter: A
Question
Attorneys for Georgetown Hospital applied1 for an emergency writ at 4:00 P.M., September 17, 1963, seeking relief from the action of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying the hospital's application for permission to administer blood transfusions to an emergency patient.2 The application recited that 'Mrs. Jesse E. Jones is presently a patient at Georgetown University Hospital,' 'she is in extremis,' according to the attending physician 'blood transfusions are necessary immediately in order to save her life,' and 'consent to the administration thereof can be obtained neither from the patient nor her husband.'3 The patient and her husband based their refusal on their religious beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The order sought provided that the attending physicians 'may' adminiser such transfusions to Mrs. Jones as might be 'necessary to save her life.' After the proceedings detailed in Part IV of this opinion, I signed the order at 5:20 P.M.
Initially, it may be well to put this matter into fuller legal context, including 'the nature of the controversy, the relation and interests of the parties, and the relief sought in the instant case.'5 The application was in the nature of a petition in equity to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a court of general jurisdiction. Though not fully articulated therein, the application sought a decree in the nature of an injunction and declaratory judgment6 to determine the legal rights and liabilities between the hospital and its agents on the one hand, and Mrs. Jones and her husband on the other. Mrs. Jones subsequently appeared in the cause, in this court, as respondent to the application. The treatment proposed by the hospital in its application was not a single transfusion, but a series of transfusions. The hospital doctors sought a court determination before undertaking either this course of action or some alternative. The temporary order issued was more limited than the order proposed in the original application, in that the phrase 'to save her life' was added, thus limiting the transfusions in both time and number. Such a temporary order to preserve the life of the patient was necessary if the cause were not to be mooted by the death of the patient.
At any time during the series of transfusions which followed, the cause could have been brought on for hearing by motion before the motions division of this court,7 and the order either vacated, continued, or superseded by an order of a more permanent nature, such as an interlocutory injunction. Neither the patient, her husband, nor the hospital, however, undertook further proceedings in this court or in the District Court during the succeeding days while blood was being administered to the patient.
Read the court decision in Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College Inc. Do you agree with the judge’s reasoning in this decision? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
Answer ,
Yes, we do agree with the Judge's decision in this case.
The reasonfor this is that the judge has given the decision in the given case, in such a way to save the life of the patient, though the legal formalities were not being followed. The judge gave the interim decision for the time the life of the oatent can be saved. The decision is not for longer time and it can not be used for regularor routine treatment, but this decision was for the limited time period only in order to savethe life of the patient.
hus the judge's decision on saving the life of the patient looks logical and it saves the purpose of saving the human life. The purpose of judiciary system is to have provide the framwork in which the human lifes are maintained with ethical standards.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.