In Ireland, JW's may sue over blood transfusion

by Kenneson 40 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Kenneson

  In an unprecedented case, an Irish judge overruled an adult woman Jehovah's Witness objection to blood transfusions. In the past, only children had been forced to have transfusions where deemed necessary. When the story first broke out, there were several ambiguities and questions unanswered. Now, it has come to light that the woman has a husband and that when he reached the hospital in an attempt to prevent a transfusion for his wife, he was prohibited from going into her ward. So, now, Jehovah's Witnesses are contemplating suing either the hospital or the state.

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2372595,00.html
• 

  badboy

  THIS WILL BE GOOD!

  WILL/CAN EX-JWS APPEAR TO GIVE TESTIMONY?
• 

  Gill

  It's a difficult case that makes the JWs look bad whatever they do and alienates them from the public even more.

  Would they have preferred this lady to die?

  Comparing this procedure to 'rape' is an insult to the hospital staff who saved the woman's life and those who altruistically donate their own blood to save lives.

  The woman was about to die....you're asking a lot for medical staff to stand by and watch.

  Having said that, is it right to force any treatment on someone?

  This could turn very interesting.
• 

  greendawn

  Did the world have enough of this WTS stupidity? People offer their blood as an act of kindness to save lives and no harm comes to them, millions of lives were saved this way. I am sure the FDS understands this.
• 

  isthisit

  it is strange, most papers and people are coming out in favour of the witness woman. The doctors and the Courts violated the constitution, something that people here feel very strongly about. The arguments on the radio shows and in the news papers are concentrating on the constitutional issue rather than the religious. She was victim to what the papers AND BARRISTERS are terming "court sanctioned assault". She was found to be "compus mensis" and therefore could not be sectioned. The court took away her rights as an adult patient of a hospital. Until the supreme court clarifies the issue, theoreticaly it is possible for any public body force anything upon anyone "for their own good".
  It is altogther a strange case. she stated that she was alone, she lied, her husband is in the country but is illegal. More and more is coming out that clouds the issues. She was a member of the Dublin-French congregation which is a very close knit group. More and more is going to come out and i'll try to keep you all updated.
• 

  Hellrider

  Did she have a blood card on her, or did she not? That is what the key issue is, in this case, imo. It`s not enough that some relative shows up and claims "yeah, she`s a jw, so no blood, you hear". If she didn`t have a blood card, it was right of them to give her blood. If the doctors were to accept anyone coming in and saying "she`s a jw, so no blood", people could commit murder by doing that...
• 

  isthisit

  yes she did, my sources in Dublin (the ones that are still talking to me) said that she did have her medical release on her and there was another witneses with her.
• 

  carla

  What the gb should do is just ban hospitals completely for jw's. Then everybody will be happy, the jw's can die in droves and feel righteous and the hospital workers & doctors don't have to sit helplessly by and watch people die for a printing company.
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  This could indeed be an interesting case. According to the hospital, the woman's religion was noted to be Romamn Catholic on admission, but according to the jws she had a no blood card with her, which the hospital admin saw. Whatever the outcome, I agree with other posters - it's a no - win situation for the jws. All it will highlight is that they are prepared to leave a new born baby without a mother for the sake of a religious principle.
• 

  Gilberto

  So she had her card with her but had not signed a specific release form which is normal when going for surgery or giving birth. My wife did this before the birth of our son, but I made sure she told the Consultant that I did not agree with it and would allow blood for our baby if necessary. The consultant said "well don't worry that will not be a decision you will have to make, we will do whatever we have to". I was prepared to fight for my wife if anything did happen to her. Actually I think she would have changed her mind anyway.

  I was just wondering would the judge have come to the same conclusion if she had not been a French-Speaking African?