United States v. George
| Decision Date | 20 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 10889. |
| Citation | 239 F. Supp. 752 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Elishas GEORGE and Elizabeth George. |
Jon O. Newman, U. S. Atty., Howard R. Moskof, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.
Elishas George and Elizabeth George, pro se.
This is a motion by the government to dissolve a temporary restraining order, signed by this Court on March 17, 1965, and to withdraw the complaint.
On March 17, 1965, at approximately 11:30 A.M., an attorney for the government, on behalf of the Veterans Administration Hospital located in West Haven, Connecticut, orally applied to this Court for an order granting permission to administer blood transfusions to an emergency patient, Elishas George, in order to save his life. The patient refused to allow the medical staff to administer the blood transfusions on the ground he was a Jehovah's Witness and such transfusions were contrary to his religious belief. Upon being informed that the patient's condition was "precarious" but not extreme, this Court refused to act on the oral application. Thereafter the government brought this civil action with service upon both Mr. and Mrs. George, and set the matter down for hearing on March 18, 1965. Compare, Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., 118 U.S.App. D.C. 90, 331 F.2d 1010, 1011 (1964) (Miller, J., dissenting).
However, at approximately 6:30 P.M., on March 17, 1965 the Court received a telephone call from the government's attorney and was informed the patient's condition had become critical. Further, the government had prepared, pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written application for a temporary restraining order supported by an affidavit from the treating physician which stated the Court's order was now necessary to save the patient's life.
The Court arrived at the hospital at 8:00 P.M. and until 10:15 P.M. interviewed five doctors, Mrs. George, Mr. George, Mrs. Gradie George, mother of the patient, and several members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect. Both Mr. and Mrs. George expressly declined the Court's offer to appoint counsel of their own choosing or to be represented by an attorney selected by the Court.
On March 15, 1965, George, the 39 year old father of four children, voluntarily admitted himself to the hospital for treatment of a bleeding ulcer. Although bleeding seriously from his gastrointestinal tract, he refused blood transfusions. Both George and his wife were Jehovah's Witnesses, the teaching of which sect prohibited the transfusion of blood into the body. The patient and his wife signed releases, relieving the hospital and its employees of any civil liability for any injury which followed from the lack of blood transfusions.
The medical testimony was clear the blood loss was so great that standard medical care dictated the administration immediately of at least five pints of whole blood. The laboratory tests indicated he had already lost 60 to 65% of his red blood cells. His condition was grave, and any further bleeding, without blood transfusion, would most likely lead to shock and probable death. Psychiatric reports indicated the patient showed a lack of concern for life, and a somewhat fatalistic attitude about his condition was described as "a variant of suicide."
Mr. George appeared to the Court to be coherent, rational and rather strong. However, doctors in attendance agreed his outward appearance was deceiving and his internal condition was most serious. When the Court introduced himself, George's first remarks were that he would not agree to be transfused but would in no way resist a court order permitting it, because it would be the Court's will and not his own. His "conscience was clear", and the responsibility for the act was "upon the Court's conscience." He stated he would rather die than agree to a transfusion. The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Green
... ... Exercise clause of the First Amendment ... Almost a ... century ago, the United States Supreme Court enunciated the ... twofold concept of the Free Exercise clause: 'Laws are ... While a similar result was reached in United States v ... George, 239 F.Supp. 752 (D.C.Conn.1965), that court ... dissolved the order several days later when the ... ...
-
Conroy, Matter of
...that she would not oppose the transfusion if court ordered it since it would not then be her responsibility), and United States v. George, 239 F.Supp. 752, 753 (D.Conn.1965) (transfusion was authorized for patient who told court that he would not agree to the transfusion, but volunteered th......
-
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz
...for a patient under its custody and control outweighed the individual decision to decline the necessary measures. See United States v. George, 239 F.Supp. 752 (D.Conn.1965); Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center v. Levitt, 73 Misc.2d 395, 342 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1973); In re Samps......
-
Green, In re
...ordered for an adult Jehovah's Witness whose life was immediately endangered. While a similar result was reached in United States v. George, 239 F.Supp. 752 (D.C.Conn.1965), that court dissolved the order several days later when the patient was no longer In extremis and could decide whether......
-
Judicial Enforcement of Lifesaving Treatment for Unwilling Patients
...1991). 193. 529 A.2d 404 (N.J. 1987). 194. 294 A.2d 372 (D.C. 1972). 195. In re Osborne, 294 A.2d 372, 373-74 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 196. 239 F. Supp. 752 (D. Conn. 1965). 197. United States v. George, 239 F. Supp. 752, 753 (D. Conn. 1965). 198. George, 239 F. Supp. at 753. 199. Osborne, 294 A.2......
-
Life as an intrinsic rather than instrumental good: the "spiritual" case against euthanasia.
...1103b, reprinted in THE BASIC WORKS OF ARISTOTLE 935, 952-53 (Richard McKeon ed., 25th ed. 1941). (19) 279 A.2d 670 (N.J. 1971). (20) 239 F. Supp. 752 (D. Conn. (21) Deuteronomy 28:9. (22) ARISTOTLE, NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Book VIII, 1156-57, reprinted in THE BASIC WORKS OF ARISTOTLE 1060-62 (......