In Ireland, JW's may sue over blood transfusion (page 2)

barry

I would suggest the hospital should remove the offending blood from the womens body taking the exact amount.

This is fantastic in as far as legal history is concerned...the paramount rights of a child balanced with the rights of the parent to accept/refuse treatment....I will be watching for this to appear at the Court of Appeal.

This raises some fantastic issues from an academic point of view... The high court showed some guts in my view.

DB74

funkyderek

Previous court cases in Ireland have established the right of an adult to refuse medical treatment, even if they will likely die, and even if their reasons are irrational or non-existent.
There was no question over the woman's mental competence, so the decision appears to breach precedent and violate the woman's constitutional rights.
However, the judge in this case ruled that the risk to the child's welfare was such that the court should intervene as it appeared the woman had no relatives in Ireland. The woman was an immigrant and apparently gave no next of kin, because her husband was an illegal immigrant. The judge had to make a quick and very difficult decision, and if, as appears to be the case, he was working on false information that she gave, he would have seen a greater risk to the welfare of the child than had she told the truth.

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

The woman, identified as Ms K, does not speak English and communicated with hospital staff in French. She is said to have been initially reluctant to name her husband as next of kin because of fears over the legality of his presence in the country. The hospital did not learn of his existence until he tried to gain access to the ward where his wife was being treated prior to the transfusion.
Requested to present identification by a nurse, Mr K asked a colleague to obtain documentation from his home but the transfusion went ahead before he could convince hospital authorities of his identity as the woman?s next of kin.

From the same article:

The Jehovah?s Witnesses, who have more than 5,000 members in Ireland, is now seeking to determine if the patient?s constitutional rights were breached. ?We?ve been waiting for a case like this in Ireland for quite some time,? said their spokesperson.

From 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.

Tellingly, this is the same E. G. Watt who was quoted in Crisis of Conscience as saying "It's not whether it's true or false that matters; it's whether it's in agreement with the Society's teachings." [Paraphrased from memory. Could someone has their copy of CoC to hand confirm the exact phrasing please?]

JWdaughter

I read of the case. The woman went to the hospital, did NOT claim to be married and supposedly had no idea who the father was (or something)She had a blood card, but also said she was Roman Catholic. So, as she is getting the transfusion, some guy who is there illegally (apparently) claims to be the 'husband','father', and tried to get in. NOW, in the middle of all those LIES they have a newborn baby about to lose the only parent that they know it will have in that country(she is an immigrant). To keep the woman alive so as to not have an orphan is obviously EVIL and they should be SUED for not knowing which LIE to believe or disbelieve, because these, the most HONEST people on earth have a right for their religious beliefs to be expected, even after LYING and DECEIT.

I have sympathy for the hospital in this case and for that poor baby who is going to be raised by JW parents. Irish people love babies, they could have found it a wonderful non JW family if the mother had died. Glad the mom did not die, but it is a shame the WT is supplying a lawsuit for a liar against the hospital that saved the womans LIFE. But we know that life has no value among those nuts.

Shelly of the just got over pneumonia class and grateful to even be alive!

diamondblue1974

Previous court cases in Ireland have established the right of an adult to refuse medical treatment, even if they will likely die, and even if their reasons are irrational or non-existent.
There was no question over the woman's mental competence, so the decision appears to breach precedent and violate the woman's constitutional rights.
However, the judge in this case ruled that the risk to the child's welfare was such that the court should intervene as it appeared the woman had no relatives in Ireland. The woman was an immigrant and apparently gave no next of kin, because her husband was an illegal immigrant. The judge had to make a quick and very difficult decision, and if, as appears to be the case, he was working on false information that she gave, he would have seen a greater risk to the welfare of the child than had she told the truth.

Agreed this does seem to fly in the face of precedent (which is on par with the English law in this respect).

The difficulty judges face with child protection issues is that whilst we have a system of precedent which binds lower court decisions, the law is far from certain; theres almost an unwritten rule that many court of appeal decisions can be distinguished on factual grounds when it relates to children and as such this creates a gambit for many a judge to reach a decision based upon discretion rather than strict precedent. As long as he or she doesnt misinterpret the law completely there isnt much of a chance of the decision being challenged successfully in the higher courts. This doesnt mean however that precedent is ignored, its just that different factual circumstances call for different rulings.

What I find astounding is that if the child was unborn his decision would've had to have been entirely different!

DB74

badboy

INTERESTING QUESTION,CAN JWS SUE THE HOSPITAL WHEN IT WAS A JUDGE WHO GAVE A COURT RULING?

diamondblue1974

To keep the woman alive so as to not have an orphan is obviously EVIL and they should be SUED for not knowing which LIE to believe or disbelieve, because these, the most HONEST people on earth have a right for their religious beliefs to be expected, even after LYING and DECEIT.

I wouldnt go as far as to say it was evil and certainly not in emphatic capitals; she has a right to refuse or accept treatment which I accept but then again where her religious beliefs are so profound they put a childs welfare at risk, this is where a balance must be struck - it is almost a legal assumption that a child is better off with its natural parents unless it can be proved to the contrary.

So it begs the question, do you deny the childs right to its natural parent or do you deny the right of a patient to make a foolish decision?

In as far as being legally liable for not knowing which lie to believe or disbelieve, I can't respectfully agree with you; the hospital had a court order which allowed them to use their discretion in terms of treatment and they had a difficult decision to make...where were they negligent?

There is a possible claim for battery or assault in tort law given that her religious convictions were made known to the hospital but then again we are back to the same old question, does the fanatical religious convictions of a patient take precedent over the paramount interests of a child?

I cant wait for the appeal if there is to be one.

DB74 (Gary)

JWdaughter

I like how the WT is interested in causing problems, looking forward to 'cases' that they can litigate to bring attention to themselves. That is sick. The whole organization is like a leperous hand, dripping with slime, rotting and festering and hopeless.

diamondblue1974

I like how the WT is interested in causing problems, looking forward to 'cases' that they can litigate to bring attention to themselves. That is sick. The whole organization is like a leperous hand, dripping with slime, rotting and festering and hopeless.

Precisely.... DB74

nelly136

the judge made a decision on the information he had to hand ...single parent, no relatives, (roman catholic?), the child could become an orphan in a strange land with no one to look after it.........cept the jws were lying out their arses cos they were covering for illegal immigrant(s)?

the hospital is slated cos a strange geezer turns up saying he's the husband.....when as far as theyre concerned doesnt exist as per information given by the woman, and they hold him up expecting him to provide proof....cos else any nutjob could present emselves as single wiminz hubbies?

so the dub side lie out of their arses and then rub their hands together in glee cos theyve finally got a court case theyve been looking forward to for years by engineering lies to get one?

what happened to perjury??????????

In Ireland, JW's may sue over blood transfusion

Share this