Posted on 10/07/2009 6:39:40 PM PDT by Born Conservative
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The state of Pennsylvania cannot force a seriously ill prison inmate to undergo a blood transfusion , even if it could save his life, a Commonwealth Court judge said in a decision released Wednesday.
Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley said inmate Anthony Lindsey's wishes must be respected under the First Amendment, whether they are based on religion or something else.
Lindsey, 37, an inmate at the Laurel Highlands state prison in Somerset, refuses to allow a transfusion because it violates his religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness.
A doctor at the prison said in court papers that Lindsey is in "imminent danger" of dying if he does not have a transfusion.
Lindsey suffers from a serious kidney ailment that requires dialysis several times a week. He also has gastrointestinal bleeding caused by other medical problems that could be corrected by surgery, but doctors are unwilling to operate unless he has transfusions to compensate for his blood loss, according to court papers.
Lindsey, who is serving a 13- to 36-year term for drug trafficking, had a kidney transplant in 2001, but that organ is no longer functional, court papers said.
In denying a preliminary injunction sought by the Corrections Department, the judge said he was satisfied that the state is prepared to "render whatever treatment is medically necessary and appropriate and to do so promptly" and, likewise, that Lindsay has carefully considered the implications of his position.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
So, what’s the problem????
Fair enough (I thought there was a very expensive emulsion that Du Pont developed for this kind of situation?), but then neither he nor his family should be able to turn around and sue about the results.
This seems fair enough, on the surface at least.
Nice. The State wants to force treatment on a criminal so that he will live, but they are going to cut Grandma’s medicaid because we can’t afford it. This world is truly upside down.
The article referenced doesn’t give many details but for over thirty years open heart surgery has been done without blood transfusions and with good results.
So serious surgical procedures can be done without transfusions and thus avoid any side effects from transfused blood. But maybe this guy is too ill to consider it in his case.
Both GI bleeding and kidney failure cause profound anemia.
Surgery on an anemic patient is very dangerous, and most surgeons will not do surgery until the anemia is corrected (and the anesthesiologist would probably not do the anesthesia). The only time you would probably see surgery done on an anemic patient is in a situation where death is imminent if the surgery isn’t done.
Yeah, quite true. Medical procedures on prisoners against their will is not something I want to see in any situation.
A doctor at the prison said in court papers that Lindsey is in “imminent danger” of dying if he does not have a transfusion.
We would not want to infringe upon this fine citizen’s First Amendment Rights, now would we?
Especially at the taxpayers expense.
They probably went through this whole exercise to keep from getting SUED by the prisoner’s family.
What, you think that the legal situation in this country is bleeding us to death? How dare you! :-/
It's a slippery slope! If you make it voluntary and let people make decisions about their own lives, prisoners will soon feel that it's their duty... </sarc>
...and then Obama can just lock up the conservatives and they'll be no more problem!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.