specially concurring:
In moving for summary judgment, the defendant argued that there is no material issue of fact because it is undisputed that the plaintiff would not have accepted a blood transfusion under any circumstances. The defendant based his argument on the Corletts’ refusal of a blood transfusion and a release they signed to that effect. The Corletts signed the release after the alleged negligence of the doctor occurred. For purposes of our review, we must accept that the defendant was negligent. Purtill v. Hess (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 229, 489 N.E.2d 867.
Illinois common law imposes a duty on the plaintiff not to refuse reasonable medical treatment. (Haering v. Spicer (1900), 92 Ill. App. 449; Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 105.08 (1961) (a patient is required to follow reasonable advice of physician); also see Newell v. Corres (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 466 N.E.2d 1085 (under comparative negligence principles, a patient’s refusal to accept treatment is a factor to be weighed in determining the relative degree of negligence of the parties).) In determining the reasonableness of the medical treatment, the finder of fact must consider, among other factors, the degree of risk, the amount of pain, the degree of relief hoped for, and the chances of success of the disputed treatment. (D. Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of Remedies §8.9 (1973).) In the present case, the only evidence presented concerns the plaintiff’s subscription to the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness religion. As such, we cannot determine if Corlett’s refusal of a blood transfusion was reasonable and the trial court’s summary judgment order must be reversed.
However, in remanding this case, I believe we must offer some guidance to the trial court so that it may squarely address the effect of Corlett’s religious beliefs on his duty to accept reasonable medical treatment. With respect to this issue, I believe that if a blood transfusion is otherwise considered reasonable, this determination is not changed by the fact that a patient refuses the transfusion because he is a Jehovah’s Witness. Once a patient avails himself of medical treatment generally, he accepts that his treatment will involve reasonable medical procedures. The plaintiff is not precluded from exercising his right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons; however, he cannot impose a greater liability on the defendant than would have obtained had his religious beliefs permitted him to undergo the treatment. Martin v. Industrial Accident Comm’n (1956), 147 Cal. App. 2d 137, 304 P.2d 828 (upholding finding of Industrial Commission that worker who refused lifesaving blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah’s Witness had unreasonably refused medical treatment and was therefore not entitled to worker’s compensation), disapproved in Montgomery v. Board of Retirement (1973), 33 Cal. App. 3d 447, 109 Cal. Rptr. 181.
Whether a patient’s refusal to accept medical treatment is reasonable depends on factors relating to the risk, effort, sacrifice, and expense involved. (Cockrum v. Baumgartner (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 271, 425 N.E.2d 968, reversed on other grounds (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 193, 447 N.E.2d 385, cert. denied (1983), Raja v. Michael Reese Hospital, 464 U.S. 846, 78 L. Ed. 2d 139, 104 S. Ct. 149.) A patient’s religious convictions do not affect the determination of what is reasonable. When a patient refuses an otherwise unreasonable treatment, it is of no consequence that he has based his refusal on religious grounds. (See Montgomery v. Terminal R.R. Association (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 650, 392 N.E.2d 77.) Similarly, when a patient refuses an otherwise reasonable treatment, his duty to accept that treatment is not qualified by the fact that his refusal is dictated by his religious beliefs.
As to the release signed by the Corletts, I am in agreement with Judge Joseph Gordon, the original trial judge. Judge Gordon correctly ruled that a release signed after the defendant’s negligence took place cannot serve to retroactively relieve the defendant’s liability.
Because the majority opinion is precedential, I feel that I must make certain comments about it. It appears to me that the question of religion is clearly raised in the briefs and certainly the majority comments on it. However, the majority refuses to rule on the religious question, stating that the admissibility of evidence of religious beliefs is not before the court on review. This stance is rather puzzling in light of the fact that the majority spends a considerable amount of time musing about the religious issue and then appears to rule on the issue specifically. The opinion states that the majority declines to create “an exemption from tort principles” where a patient refuses treatment because of religious convictions. (204 Ill. App. 3d at 412.) In an apparent retreat from that proposition, the majority states that where a party refuses reasonable medical treatment on religious grounds, the refusal should not “completely defeat” the patient’s recovery, and further that the doctor should not be “totally liable” for all subsequent injuries. (204 Ill. App. 3d at 412.) The majority concludes the issue by stating that where the doctor is negligent and the patient exercises his religious right to refuse reasonable medical procedures, the patient’s estate must bear a proportionate share of the tort liability to the extent that the death was proximately caused by the patient’s refusal.
The majority’s messages to the trial court on remand are confusing and mixed. I am concerned about the statements of the court that I have related to the extent that they say that in all situations where a doctor is negligent, an injured patient must recover, albeit on a reduced basis. There may well be situations, the present one included, in which the doctor’s conduct may be denominated as malpractice but no injury would follow if the plaintiff had accepted reasonable treatment.