COLUMBIA, S.C. -- A Jehovah's Witness who says a surgeon violated his religious
beliefs by ordering a blood transfusion should have signed a living will if he
didn't want to receive blood, the surgeon's lawyer told the state Supreme Court
Tuesday.
Charlie Harvey received the transfusion to unblock his carotid artery because
he had a stroke after a 1997 surgery, but said the transfusion went against a
tenet of his religion that blood is sacred and should not be shared.
Harvey sued Dr. Glen Strickland in 1998, saying the procedure was unnecessary
and left him distraught because he had sinned.
Harvey, 55, said he had filled out a form at Lexington Medical Center saying he
did not want a blood transfusion.
But Strickland's attorney, Charles Carpenter Jr., said Tuesday that Harvey
should have sought a living will or power of attorney, because the hospital
form only applied to the elective surgery, not the stroke.
The stroke was an unforeseen emergency and the surgeon had to get consent again
for further treatment, Carpenter said. Since Harvey was unconscious, the
decision fell to his mother, who Strickland says gave permission for the
transfusion.
Harvey said after the hearing that Strickland "stole from me. He took
something from me. He took my rights.''
There are nearly a million Jehovah's Witnesses across the country, and they
cite verses in Leviticus and Acts they say forbid blood transfusions. One
often-cited Leviticus passage reads: "Whatsoever man... eats any manner of
blood, I will cut him off from among his people.''
Harvey said he believes patients, not doctors, should decided what is best for
them.
"When I was baptized in 1995, I gave my life to go with God,'' Harvey
said. "From that point on, whatever he has in store for me, that's what it
will be.''
A circuit court judge ruled in Strickland's favor in 2000, and Harvey appealed
to the high court. The Supreme Court has not said when it would rule.