T did not want to receive blood products as she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She refused blood products following the birth of her child. In conversations about her medical situation, T had assumed that there were other products that would be a satisfactory substitute for blood should a transfusion be necessary. This was not the case, and T needed a blood transfusion to save her life.
The Court found that the refusal of blood products had been given by T on the basis that alternative treatment was available. The Court therefore decided that her refusal of the blood products did not apply to the medical situation that had ultimately arisen.