## Facts

- Patricia Dubreuil, a competent adult and Jehovah’s Witness, was admitted to a public hospital in late-stage pregnancy and lacked a private physician.
- She signed a routine admission consent form that included possible blood infusion if necessary.
- Before a caesarean section, she specifically refused any blood transfusion on religious grounds, while consenting to the C-section.
- After delivery, she suffered severe bleeding due to a condition impairing clotting; physicians concluded a transfusion was necessary to save her life.
- In the emergency, hospital staff obtained consent from her estranged husband, who authorized transfusion; physicians administered blood.
- Anticipating further transfusions, the hospital sought an emergency declaratory judgment to authorize transfusions over Patricia’s objection.
- During the hearing, Patricia regained consciousness and clearly reaffirmed her refusal; the trial court nonetheless authorized transfusions to prevent alleged “abandonment” of her four minor children.
- The district court of appeal affirmed; the Florida Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the state may compel a competent adult to receive life-saving blood transfusions over religious objection based on a claimed interest in preventing “abandonment” of minor children.
2. Whether a spouse’s consent can substitute for, or override, a competent patient’s contemporaneous refusal of treatment.
3. Whether Florida constitutional privacy and religious-freedom protections bar compelled transfusion on this record.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded.
- The Court held the record did not establish abandonment sufficient to override Patricia’s constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.
- The Court rejected reliance on speculative harm to the children where other caregivers existed and no actual or imminent abandonment was shown.
- The Court indicated spousal consent cannot override a competent patient’s clear refusal.

## Legal Principles

- A competent adult has a Florida constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, including life-saving treatment.
- Courts may consider asserted state interests (including protection of third parties), but those interests must be concrete and sufficiently compelling to override the patient’s constitutional rights.
- A generalized claim that a parent’s death would leave minor children without care is insufficient; actual or imminent abandonment must be proven on the record.
- A spouse’s consent does not trump a competent patient’s unambiguous refusal; a generic consent form does not override a specific contemporaneous refusal.

## Conclusion

Florida may not compel a competent adult to accept a blood transfusion over explicit religious objection based solely on a speculative concern for minor children; absent proof of actual abandonment, the patient’s constitutional right to refuse treatment controls, and spousal consent cannot displace that refusal.


In re Dubreuil, 629 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1993)