This is a good ethical question, and it is playing out in California. A man shot a Jehovah’s Witness in an apparent gang dispute. The victim was taken to the hospital where he refused a blood transfusion due to his religious beliefs and he died due to the wounds.

The shooter’s lawyer is saying his client shouldn’t be charged with murder because it was the refusal of the victim to take the blood transfusion that cost him his life. The prosecutor says that one of the bullets hit a vein and the victim would have died even with the transfusion.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the blood transfusion would have saved him, who would be at fault for the death, the shooter or the victim?