Hospital ordered to give Jehovah's Witness transfusion

by Gilberto 18 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Gilberto

  http://www.eveningecho.ie/news/bstory.asp?j=83890466&p=8389x768&n=83890846

  Hospital ordered to give Jehovah's Witness transfusion
  
  21/09/2006 - 5:28:29 PM
  
  The High Court tonight intervened to save the life of a seriously ill African woman by ordering a Dublin hospital to give her a life-saving blood transfusion.
  
  The 23-year-old Congolese woman, who suffered a major haemorrhage today after giving birth to a healthy baby boy, had refused the treatment on religious grounds because she is a Jehovah?s Witness.
  
  Believed to be the first case of its kind involving an adult in Ireland, the court ruled the Coombe Hospital must put the interests of the child first and save the mother?s life.
  
  It is understood she had lost 80% of her blood.
  
  A spokesman for the Coombe Hospital confirmed doctors had been ordered to act in the best interests of the mother.

  Interesting that the adult can be forced to have a transfusion. Anyone heard of this before? This would make a mockery of the release form for expectant mothers.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  I haven't seen that one Gilberto. It is interesting that the court can do that with an adult, and one who was obviously capable of refusing treatment at that. Obviously, courts around the world can, and do, force transfusions on minors, but I can't remember any instances recently where an adult was forced to undergo treatment they had previously rejected.

  I wonder if her husband is a jw? Maybe he isn't, and had some influence here.
• 

  Calico Ethel

  I've heard of many cases in the United States where the court ordered doctors to give blood transfusions to minor's, but I've never heard of them doing that to an adult. However, since it wasn't in the US, maybe there laws are different over there????
• 

  Gilberto

  Notice this article

  http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=76859&pt=n

  Ewen Watt, a member of the Watch Tower organisation for Jehovah`s Witnesses in Ireland, said blood transfusions were a matter for individuals.
  
  "That is a personal decision for each individual Christian to make. Each one of the Jehovah`s Witnesses would have to make a decision with regard to that," he said.

  Yeah, Right. I believe you Ewen.

  Edited to add this quote:

  The judge said he accepted Ms K was compos mentis and if brought to court on a stretcher she would oppose the application.
  
  But he told the court he felt it necessary to override her religious beliefs on the grounds that her baby boy had no other relatives, or guardians, that were known of in the state.
  Mr Justice Abbott said the interests of the child were paramount and that he must err on the side of preserving life.
• 

  Scully

  her baby boy had no other relatives, or guardians, that were known of in the state.

  So.... she is unmarried? I wonder if she is a baptized JW or unbaptized (a "Study") or DFd. I wonder if any local JWs would have taken in the baby had she died. It sounds as though the baby would have become a ward of the government had she died.
• 

  under_believer

  Re: her adultness, I believe the deciding factor here was the life of her newborn child. I doubt this would have happened had she just been some random lady who wanted to bleed to death.
• 

  skyking

  I agree with it. The state of Washington took legal action against myself and my wife to give a transfusion to my daughter. THANK GOD THEY DID THIS.

  I know the lady mentioned was 23 but she might not of had a husband and then the State would have had to take care of the baby.
• 

  Gilberto

  A quote about the case from the Humanist Association

  http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0922/1158590881290.html

  The Humanist Association of Ireland described the court decision as "absolutely outrageous". Its vice-chairman Dick Spicer said the decision set a dreadful precedent. "It overrides individual religious rights. It overrides the right to refuse treatment and the ramifications of this could be enormous in the future", he said.

  I understand his concerns but what he doesn't realise is that the Watchtower have overriden the individual rights of its members by the banning of blood transfusions. I also think he would find outrageous that should the woman have chosen to have had a transfusion she would have been shunned by all her religious colleagues.

  A case in point is that of Skyking:

  The state of Washington took legal action against myself and my wife to give a transfusion to my daughter. THANK GOD THEY DID THIS.

  I hope things worked out well with your daughter.

  But it shows that actually it is not the individuals beliefs that cause the refusal of blood but that of the Governing Body. To illustrate, I wonder how many JWs would now happily accept haemoglobin wheras a few years ago it was banned?
• 

  Dansk

  the Watchtower have overriden the individual rights of its members by the banning of blood transfusions.

  Absolutely! Thank goodness commonsense prevailed!

  Ian
• 

  lisavegas420

  People with serious mental illness (or at the very least in a possibly unstable condition) are vulnerable to receiving inadequate medical care. Maybe someday she'll be happy with the decision that was made for her...I'm sure now she is very confused.

  lisa