The case of Werth vs Taylor did not turn out the way I expected. This is because Cindy Werth had initially given a formal refusal to having any blood transfusion procedures. She justified her decision by quoting her religious beliefs. I, therefore, expected the court to honor her wishes by honoring or respecting her religious point of view.
If Cindy wanted to make sure that she did not receive any blood regardless of the circumstances, she could have explicitly stated that she did not want the blood transfusion done even if she was in a medical emergency. This could have made it clear to the medical personnel that she held her religious beliefs in high esteem, even when it meant foregoing a potentially life-saving procedure.
The Werth’s stated that Dr. Taylor should have consulted with Cindy before proceeding with the blood transfusion procedure. If this would have happened, then it could not have changed the outcome of the case. This is because the law acknowledges that when the standard informed consent is applied in this situation, it could have seriously undermined the safety, health, and ultimately the life of the patient. Cindy’s case was an emergency, and so if the doctor failed to act as he did, her life could have been in danger. This is what I believe could have been the basis of the outcome of the case (Liang, 2003).
During emergencies where a patient may lose their life, the physician or healthcare worker is allowed to assume that the patient gave consent to any or all medically appropriate and relevant care that would save their lives (Liang, 2003).