DOCTORS were forced to stand by and watch an ailing woman die in the Princess Alexandra Hospital last week, because her religion had banned blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witness Brisbane Hospital Liaison Committee member Dale Irwin said the 26-year-old woman had signed a medical directive alert card stating she did not wish to receive a blood transfusion or any other blood products.

"All baptised Jehovah's Witnesses carry a medical directive/alert card which states their express wish not to have blood or blood products administered and it is signed by them and two witnesses, therefore making it a legal document," said Mr Irwin.

Hospital staff refused to comment on the case yesterday, saying the family of the dead woman had asked for absolute anonymity. In the Jehovah's Witness faith, a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, which is forbidden in the book of Genesis in the bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses are also banned from storing their own blood before an operation.

A member of the faith who accepts a blood transfusion for themselves or their family will be disfellowshipped by the church, the church's Internet page said.

Australian Medical Association Queensland president Dr Dana Wainwright said the Brisbane case was a tragedy for the woman's family and for medical staff treating her.

"It's very difficult to watch somebody die when treatment could have sustained life," she said.

"We try to save lives as often as we can."

Dr Wainwright said when faced with a patient refusing treatment on medical grounds, every effort had to be made to make sure that was the patient's current wish.

"We have to respect the patients right to accept or reject treatments or procedures," she said.

"If we don't, it is considered an assault."

Dr Wainwright said non-blood products could maintain a patient's blood pressure for a limited time, but there was no non-blood product that could be used to replace blood in cases of severe blood loss.

The woman's death in Brisbane came as a Melbourne woman appealed a court ruling that overrode her written refusal of a blood transfusion.

The 21-year-old woman began suffering complications after the birth of her first child earlier this year.

As she lay unconscious in hospital, her husband obtained a court order allowing him to over-rule her wishes.

The woman has now sought leave to take the case to the High Court, alleging the decision to appoint her husband legal guardian failed to give due regard to her right to self-determination and physical integrity.