The Issue here is: whether the physician, hospital, its executive director and 4 nurses are liable

for this conduct

Should physician be liable for this conduct if he saved her life?
• Yes, because he did not get her consent to preform the blood transfusion
• He violated her religious rights
• A patient has the right to decide what will be done to his or her own body
• The right to refuse treatment is an inherent component of the power of the patient’s right over
his or her own body
• Plaintiff made the card for circumstances for when she would be in situations like when she
was unconscious
• Does not matter if there was or was not a signature or date, in this case, that card was there to
present that she did not want any blood transfusions to be preformed regardless of the state
that she is in
• There is a case similar to this which is the Malette v. Shulman in 1987 at the ON Superior
court: the Plaintiff (Malette) who is a Jehovah witness was injured in a car accident and was
unconscious, like Ms. Singh. The defendant (Dr. Shulman) administered the blood transfusion
to save Malette’s life, despite being aware of Malette’s religious objections to blood
transfusions as a Jehovah witness
• They held that the defendant (Dr. Shulman) is liable for battery and must pay the plaintiff
$20,000 in damages
• The reasoning was that under the doctrine of informed consent, a doctor cannot preform a
medical operation unless he has the consent of the patient. Otherwise, he can be held for
battery
• The doctor in this matter of Ms. Singh could not reasonably believe that the instructions on the
card that was discovered by the nurse, were not valid, and her having the card in her purse
identifies that it did represent her current beliefs

Is the hospital liable for the conduct of the employee

• Yes, they are vicariously liable
• They are responsible for all their employees conduct whether it is wrong or right

Are any nurses liable if directed by to assist/ Should they have alerted to someone senior to
them of the conflict
• Yes, they are liable
• They should have gone to someone that is senior to them to make sure that what they are
about to do it right

Oral Advocacy
Singh v. Toronto Eastern Hospital, executive director, Dr. Woo, and nurses
Good morning your honour,
For the recored my name is Mia Worenwu and my colleagues are Anna and Kayla, we represent
the plaintiff Anya Singh in this matter.
On the other side, are our friends Nathan and Pranavi and they represent the defendants (Toronto
Eastern Hospital, executive director, Dr. woo, and nurses)

Fact of the case

We here today to speak to the matter between Ms. Singh and the Toronto Eastern Hospital,
executive director, Dr. Woo, and four nurses

Our client was involved in an accident and was unconscious. She was then taken to the
emergency. The nurses found in her purse a card that says, our client, Ms. Singh should never be
given blood transfusion in any circumstances or any situation bc she is a Jehovah Witness.

The issue here is whether the Dr. Woo, the Toronto Easter hospital, 4 nurses and executive
director are liable for administering a blood transfusion to an unconscious patient even after
finding the card?

Held (Decision)
In the matter of Malette and Shulman, Malette was a Jehoavh Witness woman who was involved
in an accident like our client Anya Singh and was also taken to the hospital in an uncurious state.
The nurse there found a card stating that there should not be any blood transfusion in any
circumstance. Dr Shulman administered the transfusion anyway which was against Malette’s will
and the card, so the court ruled that Dr. Shulman was liable for battery and was issued a fine of
$20,000 to Malette.

Reasoning
The court, in the Malette and Shulman matter, reasoned that a doctor must not treat a patient
without his or her consent, so if we look at the situation with Malette and Shulman they are
similar if not the same to our matter here.
So, we argue that Dr. Woo, the nurses and hospital are liable for violating our clients body
without her consent and violated her rights.
We say that because Dr. Woo is liable even if he saved the life of Ms. Singh. A doctor must not
treat a patient without his or her consent.
He violated her right to consent, her religious beliefs, her charter rights and POA of personal care
given to the daughter.

On the ground of the nurses, the nurses could have asked a senior to them because they are
licensed as professionals, so they should not do wrong when asked.

For the hospital they can still be held liable, they are vicariously liable. Everybody there that
works for the hospital is under the hospital’s responsibility, so whatever wrong the workers do
the hospital is liable.

In conclusion, your honour, we are here saying that the defendants are liable, but we will leave it
up to the court to decide.
Thank you.

5. Would there have been any liability to the doctor, hospital or nurses if the patient died
because they did not perform the blood transfusion
• The JW only does not want a blood transfusion to occur, any other possibilities would have
been fine for her
• If it was a life/death situation the physician and everyone else involved would be able to go
free because they respected her wishes to not preform the blood transfusion on her

6. Should the physician have acted on the Power of Attorney for Personal Care over the
plaintiff’s daughter’s instructions
• The doctor should have respected what the mother wanted, the request of the card, and the
daughter
• The doctor should have listened to the daughter because she is the attorney on her mother’s
POA for personal care file

• According to section 2(a) of the charter:

Everyone has the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion; the doctor was not supposed
to proceed with the transfusion that broke her religious rights

- We also have to consider the Ms Singh’s beliefs, since my client is a deep in her beliefs as a
Jehovah witness this could spoil her reputation and her look within the Jehovah witness
community and this could really affect her because that is her belief and that is what she lives by

- The doctor should have provided other possible alternatives for her life threatening situation

- Refusal should’ve been respected

- The POA and DNR should have not been breached

- Seeing the card was enough and her daughter also saying that they should not perform the
transfusion was enough for the medical staff to not perform the transfusion

- The doctor needed to consider her own personal views; her rights and freedom

- Yes, it is the doctor’s duty to preserve life, but it the patient that he has to look to first not his
own view. He has to respect his patients decisions with what they want to do. A doctor needs
their patients consent, first and foremost, to perform anything on their patient