Georgetown College v. Jones

Even though the 1960s was an era of increasing civil liberties, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren refused to overturn the court of appeals' de facto approval of Judge Wright's actions to save Mrs. Jones's life. Although the Supreme Court and the judicial system were increasingly sensitive to the rights of religious minorities, they drew the line when religious sensibilities meant that modern medical technology would be denied to a person in need. Later in 1986, the New York Supreme Court awarded damages to a Jehovah's Witness patient given blood products against wishes. The Court in Randolph v. City of New York ruled a Jehovah's Witness could legally refuse treatment even if detrimental to his health.

Conflict between physicians and patients' religious beliefs led to several forms of response by health care teams. Two alternatives included coercion often in treating young patients and deception by not revealing the treatment administered when possible. The more increasingly common option was cooperation between the patient and staff in reaching a mutual understanding of the situation and the medical options available. Since the Georgetown decision, use of coercion and deception became accepted as ethically wrong in denying the autonomy of the patient, long respected in medical ethics. In fact, some feared such medical tactics would actually deter Jehovah's Witnesses from coming to hospitals at all, thus endangering lives where blood transfusions would not be a factor. The right of a patient to refuse blood transfusions based on religious reasons became well accepted ethically and legally, though still introducing additional stress on hospital staff in such situations. Some hospitals began asking Jehovah's Witnesses to sign waivers relieving hospitals of the threat of lawsuits. Most Jehovah's Witnesses began carrying medical directive cards expressing their refusal of blood transfusions under all circumstances.

Medical professionals had to accept and respect the patient's rights to refuse treatment and the patient's values and beliefs, even if death could result. A cooperative relationship between the medical profession and the sect evolved by the end of the 1990s. Jehovah's Witnesses divide blood products into two main categories. They will not accept transfusions of whole blood, red blood cells, plasma, white blood cells and platelets. Acceptable are immune globulins, vaccines, serum, hemophiliac preparations, and organ transplants. As a result, treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses often presented difficult situations for health care specialists, but new approaches in treating diseases such as leukemia were explored and shared in the medical profession.

The case also raised issues concerning ethical and legal responsibilities of hospitals and physicians who accept patients under their care. A physician's relationship with a patient is a voluntary one with no requirement to accept a particular person. But once a relationship is established, the doctor is legally responsible to provide medical treatment and can be held liable for not providing treatment. The case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) highlighted hospital employees' apprehensiveness to passively allow death without clear legal footing. In Cruzan the Court essentially ruled that the hospital was compelled to sustain life with whatever means available regardless of the desires of the immediate family when the wishes of the patient were not clear, either due to his current incapacitated state or lack of prior guidance.