The Doreen Shorter Case​—Lacerated, Perforated Uterus

Across the continent, another case was decided by the Washington State Supreme Court on January 11, 1985.² It, too, involved malpractice. But this time news reports were accurate and positive. They focused on a helpful step that Jehovah’s Witnesses take to relieve medical personnel of concern about possible liability. Witnesses sign legal documents stating that they will not hold others liable for damages that seem to result from their not accepting blood. Even if you are not a Witness, the case of Doreen Shorter relates to your medical rights.

Doreen and Elmer Shorter signed such a release of liability when she was admitted to a hospital. This Christian couple had learned that the fetus in Doreen’s womb had died but had failed to be discharged. The State Supreme Court opinion reports that her physician, Dr. Drury, recommended cleansing the uterus by a “dilation and curettage” (D & C), which involves carefully scraping the uterine walls.

The Court explained: “The operation did not go smoothly. Approximately 1 hour after surgery, Mrs. Shorter began to bleed internally and go into shock. Emergency exploratory surgery conducted by other surgeons revealed Dr. Drury had severely lacerated Mrs. Shorter’s uterus.” She bled to death.

“Mr. Shorter thereafter brought this wrongful death action alleging Dr. Drury’s negligence proximately caused Mrs. Shorter’s death . . . The jury found Dr. Drury negligent and that his negligence was ‘a proximate cause of the death of Doreen Shorter’. Damages were found to be $412,000.” However, the jury held that the Shorters’ stand had contributed to the outcome, so the award was changed to $103,000.

One important issue was the validity of a document for release of liability for nonuse of blood, such as the Shorters had signed. Is it appropriate for Jehovah’s Witnesses to sign such documents?b Do these protect doctors and hospitals involved? Also, do such documents release medical personnel from all liability, including negligence (malpractice) during surgery?

The State Supreme Court said: “Given the particular problems faced when a patient on religious grounds refuses to permit necessary or advisable blood transfusions, we believe the use of a release such as signed here is appropriate. . . . The alternative of physicians or hospitals refusing to care for Jehovah’s Witnesses is repugnant in a society which attempts to make medical care available to all its members.

“We believe the procedure used here, the voluntary execution of a document protecting the physician and hospital and the patient is an appropriate alternative and not contrary to the public interest.”

You may well wonder, though, ‘What if a surgeon is guilty of negligence during surgery? Is he still responsible for that malpractice?’

Notice what the Court stated: “While Mrs. Shorter accepted the consequences resulting from a refusal to receive a blood transfusion, she did not accept the consequences of Dr. Drury’s negligence which was, as the jury found, a proximate cause of Mrs. Shorter’s death.”

You deserve to know that four of the nine members of the State Supreme Court believed that the award should not have been reduced under a reasoning of “shared risk.” They wrote: “The refusal form signed by the Shorters represents their assent to relieve Dr. Drury of his duty to administer blood if required by the non-negligent performance of the procedure. . . . If Dr. Drury had performed the operation without negligence, but Mrs. Shorter had bled to death anyway, the doctor could not be held liable in this case.” However . . .

“The dangers of performing the D and C were never fully explained to the Shorters; they were not informed that three methods of accomplishing the procedure were available, nor were they told that the method Dr. Drury planned to use was the method most likely to result in uterine perforation and excessive bleeding.” Hence these judges held: “Dr. Drury’s negligence greatly increased Mrs. Shorter’s chances of bleeding to death; thus, the ‘magnitude’ of the risk was increased.” These judges felt that the full $412,000 should be restored.

Physicians and hospital authorities can see from the Randolph and Shorter cases that the courts recognize that treating Jehovah’s Witnesses while using documents for release of liability is “appropriate.” Such documented refusal of blood by an adult can be honored even where minor children and non-Witness relatives are involved. But as the Shorter opinion stated: “Such a release does not, however, shield those released from liability for their own negligence in treating the patient.” That is fair both to doctor and to patient.