JWTruth.orgDocumented comparison resource
Search

Blood doctrine · Claim record

In Re T (1992) the English Court of Appeal affirmed that a competent adult has 'an absolute right' to refuse treatment for reasons 'rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent', yet found no valid refusal on the facts because of the mother's influence and the circumstances, so the transfusion was lawful.

Claim ID claim-blood-case-re-tConcerns 30 July 1992Outcome
Outcome · 30 July 1992 Verified

In Re T (1992) the English Court of Appeal affirmed that a competent adult has 'an absolute right' to refuse treatment for reasons 'rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent', yet found no valid refusal on the facts because of the mother's influence and the circumstances, so the transfusion was lawful. Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales, 30 July 1992Denning Law Journal, 2007

Show the evidence (2 sources)
Official public record Verified

Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales, “Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649; [1993] Fam 95”

30 July 1992 · pp.[1992] 4 All ER 649 at 652-653 · Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Butler-Sloss and Staughton LJJ · All England Law Reports (PDF reproduced by the Global Health & Human Rights Database)

“An adult patient who, like Miss T, suffers from no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it or to choose one rather than another of the treatments being offered.”

'This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent.' T (mother 'a fervent Jehovah's Witness') signed a refusal before a caesarean; the Court held 'there was no valid refusal of consent' and that the doctors were 'justified … by the principle of necessity'. 'Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.'

Official source Archived or alternative copy Scan of original Link not auto-checkable

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Opened the full law report (19 pp.); wording and disposition confirmed. BAILII blocked by a bot challenge.

Scan provenance. PDF of the All ER report hosted by globalhealthrights.org

Corroborated by. src-dlj-2007-ziebart

Notes. The court treated the refusal as ineffective; the patient survived.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-ewca-1992-re-t

Peer-reviewed / scholarly Verified

Denning Law Journal, “Jehovah's Witnesses – Medical Care, Minors and the Religious Rite/Right”

2007 · pp.vol. 19, pp. 219-247 · David Ziebart · University of Buckingham Press

“E maintained his religious convictions throughout his life and on reaching the age of majority, refused all blood-based treatment and subsequently died.”

Quotes Ward J in Re E: the court 'should be very slow to allow a child to martyr himself'; boy of 15¾, 80-90% remission with blood products. Also quotes Lord Donaldson in Re T on the right of choice existing whether reasons are 'rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent'.

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. PDF opened and text extracted.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-dlj-2007-ziebart

Claim page

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-blood-case-re-t/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.