In the first programme, the panel discussed the case of a Jehovah's Witness with acute myeloid leukaemia who needed chemotherapy. A crucial part of this involves replenishing the blood system, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood products and are prepared to die rather than compromise their religious beliefs.
''I found this person's decision incredible. I myself have been a Jehovah's Witness for 30 years and believe just as strongly in a future life. I personally would have made a very different decision. Given that partial treatment would be so detrimental to myself and others, I would have refused it entirely. I would have accepted that this life is not all there is and would have taken palliative care instead.
I could not put other people, not sharing my belief, into such a painful dilemma. As the nurse described, she had to administer chemotherapy to this man knowing that it would kill him in a worse way than the condition itself. I find his decision incredibly selfish and stupid.'' Julie
''If the patient had been informed the treatment was futile and could not be offered, he wouldn't have had to make an active decision which would offend his religious beliefs. Autonomy has become the driving force behind medical decision making. The discussion shows that some degree of paternalism is justified.'' Ben
''It's perfectly reasonable for someone to risk his life on the grounds of his faith. If God truly has forbidden transfusions, then the issue is clear. But if he has not, Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse life-saving transfusions are losing their lives, causing anguish to their families, and distress to their doctors for no good purpose. That is what they will have to face before their Maker.'' Susan
''I was concerned that your religious expert got a fact wrong regarding our faith. We certainly do believe in palliative care and would accept it as a form of treatment.'' Jamie
''The doctors should have taken the position that the chemotherapy treatment and the blood transfusions were part of the same indivisible treatment package - one could not be had without the other, because to do so would be pure torture to death, as indeed it turned out.'' Peter
''I am astonished that anyone should think that their religious beliefs entitle them to a greater share of medical resource at the expense of others.'' Chris
''It's extremely unlikely that the patient would change his mind about treatment, as was suggested in the programme. It would likely result in a withdrawal of support and possibly the patient being ostracized by the group at his most vulnerable time. To engage with this patient in the respectful way described was the only possible decision in this sad story.'' Sarah - ex-Jehovah's Witness
''Ethically and clinically, the treatment offered should be that which will most effectively prolong life, which is the palliative care treatment. Perhaps on religious grounds, this would also be the most appropriate choice.'' Gillan
''I would like to have heard why blood transfusions are banned by this religious group. I cannot see how they can have this view from reading the bible, as transfusions cannot have existed 2000 years ago.'' James
''Autonomy appears to be paramount, but the Jehovah's Witness act amounts to suicide, whether by act or omission. Are the doctors and nurses assisting suicide?'' John
''I was once again disturbed to see that, as in so many areas of life in modern Britain, received ideas that stem from religion are given extra currency over those arrived at by the ethics apparatus. The patient was allowed to impose an unnecessary ordeal on the hospital staff and waste precious resources. Once again the rights of rational people have been subjugated to the whims of ideology.'' Alistair
