Do NOT include the original case with your submission.

1.The facts?

2.The issue(s)?

3.The court's decision?

4.The court's reasoning supporting the decision?

5.Conclusion: Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not?

Justify your answer.?

a)Agree/not?

b)Why or why not?

c)Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not?

Case study:

The plaintiff was in a car accident and was unconscious at the hospital. A nurse found a card indicating that the Plaintiff was a Jehovah's Witness and explicitly stated that under no circumstances was she to be given a blood transfusion. The doctor ignored this information and administered the transfusion anyway, believing that the procedure was medically necessary and that it was his responsibility to ensure the patient received life saving treatment. The plaintiff made a full recovery and then sued the doctor for battery. The court found for the plaintiff that the Doctor's actions constituted battery. Here, the doctor's right to treat a patient is restricted because of his knowledge, and the doctor violated the patient's rights over her own body by acting contrary to her intentions without authorization. Here, the only exception is an emergency situation when immediate treatment is necessary to save one's life. This sets the right to consent by assuming the patient is a reasonable person who would want emergency aid. A patient must be unconscious or unable to make a decision, but a doctor cannot disregard a patient's advance instructions outside of these circumstances. Damages here are nominal for mental and emotional suffering