{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0223463687150838, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.179310344827586, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Overriding the Jehovah's Witness patient's refusal of blood: a reply to Cahana, Weibel, and Hurst.

This article is a response to a survey on moral reasoning among Swiss health professionals that appeared in a recent issue of this journal. The authors of that survey inquired whether or not their respondents would give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness patient who clearly refused it. A substantial number of the respondents answered that they would override the patient's refusal and give the transfusion. The present article examines the two ethical rationales that were offered to explain the overriding respondents' answers and argues that neither one is ethically acceptable. It concludes with an account of the phenomenon of "motivated reasoning" that, so it is argued, better explains why the overriders would refuse to honor the Jehovah's Witness patient's transfusion refusal.