The master of the Coombe Women's Hospital has told the High Court he felt "caught between a rock and a hard place" when a woman whose life was in danger after suffering a massive haemorrhage refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds.
Dr Chris Fitzpatrick said he was concerned about the 24-year-old woman's ability to make an informed decision regarding her medical treatment and he believed the hospital's decision to go to the High Court in September 2006 to seek an emergency order to allow the hospital to give her a transfusion was "the correct medical decision". "I have no doubt about that," he said.
He was giving evidence on the second day of the action by the hospital against the woman in which the hospital contends it was entitled to seek the injunction, secured in September 2006 after the hospital told the court it believed the woman would die without a transfusion as she had lost some 80 per cent of her blood.
The woman may be identified only as Ms K, from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Following the court order, she was given a blood transfusion which she had refused on grounds of her religious beliefs.
In the proceedings before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, the hospital claims Ms K's constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion do not extend to enabling her to decline appropriate medical treatment. It further pleads that it would be contrary to public order and morality if Ms K could be permitted to place her life in immediate danger by declining routine medical treatment.
It also claims a general duty to protect and safeguard the woman's right to life and her personal rights generally and the family life of the woman and her child.
Ms K denies the claims. In a counter-claim, she contends the administration of the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse such medical treatment.
Ms K further also claims that the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person.
In evidence yesterday, Dr Fitzpatrick told Dr Gerard Hogan SC, for the hospital, that he arrived in the delivery ward of the hospital at 11.30am on September 21st, some 90 minutes after Ms K had haemorrhaged after giving birth to her son.
He found the hospital in a situation where a seriously ill woman who spoke little English, with no next of kin in Ireland and whose hospital records described her as Roman Catholic but who was claiming to be a Jehovah's Witness, had lost a lot of blood. For eight minutes, medical staff were unable to get a blood pressure reading from Ms K, he said.
He said he made Ms K, and a friend of hers who was present during the birth, aware how serious the situation was and had stressed that a blood transfusion was strongly recommended. Ms K, a French speaker, told him, in English, that she did not want to be transfused.
He became alarmed about Ms K's lack of awareness of the "precarious nature of her medical condition" after she asked him for some Coca Cola and tomatoes, which she believed might help in relation to her blood pressure.
Given all the circumstances, he was concerned about Ms K's ability to make an informed decision regarding the medical treatment. As her life was at risk, he felt that legal advice was absolutely necessary because the hospital had "no authority not to give Ms K a blood transfusion".
After securing an order at the High Court, he returned and informed Ms K and her friend, also a Jehovah's Witness, what was to occur. "I felt it necessary to explain to her what actions I had taken," he said.
Ms K had objected and was upset, he said. However, she was transfused, after agreeing to be sedated, on four occasions on September 21st.
On the evening of September 21st, Ms K told him she did not regret having the transfusion, he said. He was surprised by this. He said the following morning she thanked the hospital for what it had done.
The case continues today.