“No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his or her own person, free from all restraint or interference with others, unless by clear and unquestioned authority of law” (Henderson, Jabbour & Zeger, 2005). This phrase was stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1891. Saying this though, brings on a lot of moral conflicts and problems, such as what do you do if you know a procedure is safe and effective, and the patient refuses to be treated? It tears at your own moral principles because all you want to do is help that person, but by law, it’s their choice to refuse your help. The relationship between life-saving healthcare treatments and the religious beliefs of a patient have always been a major discussion topic in the medical field, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that blood is sacred, and receiving blood through a transfusion will break divine law and cannot be a morally acceptable means of ensuring one’s health. There has been a lot of confusion though among medical professionals over, “the fact that the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses prohibits them from receiving blood transfusions but not organ transplants,” (Henderson, Jabbour & Zeger, 2005), so if a Jehovah’s Witness needed a kidney, it was alright but not a blood transfusion to save their life. In one case study, there was a woman who was a Jehovah’s Witness, who was shot by her