Giving Blood while Fasting to Save One's Life

Question

I am putting together a medical ethical case for a presentation. There was a case that I saw in the emeregency room (ER). A young woman came into the ER complaining of chest pain. Well, it was during Ramadan and the patient was fasting all day. She would not let us draw any blood on her because that would break her fast. I think we waited until her fast was over because it was only a short wait until sunset. It was okay to do this in this particular case, but if it were an older woman we would have to draw her blood to check whether she possibly had a heart attack. What does the Islam say about fasting and breaking a fast? Is it okay for a patient or a doctor to break the fast in an emergency case? What about the ethical principles involved - respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice? What should be done in such a case?

Response

There are multiple issues to consider in such a situation that I will attempt to discern, and then address one by one:

The first is the fact that in matters as personal as religion, people do have different beliefs and opinions. Even though there are areas where the majority of adherents of a faith may agree on a given conclusion, yet individuals still have their personal beliefs and they may choose to agree or disagree with others. In such cases, an individual's opinions and beliefs come into play too, especially in situations where the final decision belongs to them.
The response to the actual questions that you have asked can be divided into two parts:

In Islam a fast is not broken on drawing of the blood. Thus, in the case you mention, and all the similar ones, it would be acceptable to draw blood of the patient in order to verify their medical condition.
More importantly, in an emergency it would be quite acceptable for the patient to break their fast and help the doctor diagnose them, especially in a case as serious as a heart attack. Such provisions do exist in Islam and Islam definitely does allow and give a chance to save one's life. Life is considered one of the most important things, and should be protected. Some scholars, perhaps rightly, would even argue that it becomes incumbent upon the patient to break their fast in order to save their life. The patient who had to break their fast can make it up at a later time.

From a social perspective, it is also possible that a patient, despite these provisions, may choose not to break their fast. In such cases, same rules may apply that would apply to any other patient who refuses to have themselves diagnosed. An example would be a patient who comes to the hospital but refuses to have their blood drawn for a non-religious reason. Similarly, consider a patient who does not want to be treated. We may have to see how those cases are being handled in general and then apply to the situation that you have mentioned. The law of the state or country also has a bearing. Some states require hospitals to treat patients if they have serious health risks, especially fatal, even if they do not consent. Other places honor the opinion of the patients or their guardians. These questions will have to be answered in general before addressing religious needs of people.