Case Brief-

Shorter V. Drury.

Citation-

Shorter V. Drury

695 P.2d 116 (1985).

Nature of the Case-

This was a case of civil action that came before the Washington Supreme Court, United States.
This case is related to tort law.

Facts-

Plaintiffs were Jehovah's Witnesses, a belief denying its adherents from accepting blood
transfusions. When Doreen (descendent) was pregnant, she talked with Dr. Robert Drury
(litigant), a family expert who analyzed her as having a "missed premature birth," a condition
wherein an embryo dies. To stop the infection from spreading all over her body, a Cutterage and
dilation (c and D) were suggested. Of the three most utilized strategies to perform the surgery,
Drury picked the strategy that can cause the most elevated danger of seeping because of the
conceivable cut from the instrument utilized. Drury disclosed the technique to Doreen, including
the danger of dying, however, failed to inform her concerning the two substitute strategies. A
subsequent option acquired by Doreen affirmed the technique as proper and cautioned her of the
danger of critical blood loss. At the clinic, the Shorter’s signed a report delivering the clinic,
doctors, and staff from all liability coming from her refusal to accept the blood if necessary.
During the procedure, Drury gashed Doreen's uterus making her drain bountifully. Doctors
rehashed to Doreen and Elmer to accept the blood transfusion, but they rejected it. Doreen
seeped to death. Mr. Shorter filed a suit of wrongful death asserting Drury's carelessness
proximately caused her wife’s demise. The jury held the surgeon, Drury was negligent. The jury
found 75 percent of the damages resulted from the decedent’s refusal of a blood transfusion and
awarded a net amount of $103,000.00, 25 percent of the gross verdict of $412,000.00.  Plaintiff
appealed.
Issue- When a patient refuses to the advised medical treatment, is it a document that releases the
doctors and staff from liability for results that may occur due to the refusal valid?

Holding-

When a patient declines prompted clinical therapy, a document that exempts the clinical
practitioners from risk for results that may happen because of the refusal is legitimate. A release
of liability from negligence is not enforceable in a matter involving the public interest, such as
the provision of medical services in this case. The release of liability following a refusal to
accept a transfusion is not an effort to release a medical provider from the results of his
negligence. It is simply an insistence that the person refusing the transfusion bear the
consequences of his own conscious decision. Any other holding would probably cause the effect
of medical providers refusing to treat this type of patient at all, which is a result not consistent
with the policy goal of encouraging access to medical treatment. These reasons show that the
jury's 75 percent rebate of Plaintiff's award was considered to be valid.

Rationale-

When a patient refuses to the advised medical treatment, a document that exempts the doctors,
staff members from liability for results that may occur due to the refusal is valid.