by DannyHaszard 185 Replies latest watchtower medical
Am I correct in my understanding that the Hospital is also taking action AGAINST the JW woman for refusing blood transfusion in the first place?
NOw that really is interesting!
And the lady has launched a counter suit against the hospital for assault in saving her life?
This is bizarre!
Can someone explain a little more to me, please?
And is the WTBTS paying for/ providing the woman's legal defence / attack team?
Top doctor dismisses claim blood transfusion 'like rape'
Irish Independent, Ireland - 1 hour ago
THE Master of the Coombe Women's Hospital has strongly rejected a female Jehovah's Witness' description of a blood transfusion administered to her at the ... Friday October 05 2007 THE Master of the Coombe Women's Hospital has strongly rejected a female Jehovah's Witness' description of a blood transfusion administered to her at the hospital against her wishes, after she suffered a massive, haemorrhage as being "like a rape". Dr Chris Fitzpatrick said the woman had given an "inaccurate representation'' of what had happened to her after she experienced massive blood loss following the birth of her baby boy at the Coombe Women's hospital on September 21, 2006. He was told the woman had said that during the transfusion process, people were around her terrifying her, that she wanted to fight the medical staff off before the transfusion was given but was unable to, that she was held and sedated before the transfusion was administered and had described the experience as like a rape. Dr Fitzpatrick said he "found it difficult to reconcile" what had happened with that account of events. Staff at the hospital were "at pains'' to support the woman during what was a difficult time for everybody concerned, he said. He was giving evidence in the continuing action by the hospital against the woman in which the hospital contends it was entitled to seek an injunction in September 2006 to give the woman a transfusion. The hospital secured the order after it told the court it believed the woman would die without a transfusion as she had lost some 80pc (%) of her blood and that the woman had refused the transfusion in light of her religious beliefs. The woman may be identified only as Ms K. She is 24 years of age and from the Democratic Republic of Congo. In the proceedings before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, the hospital claims Ms K's constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion do not extend to enabling her to decline appropriate medical treatment. It further pleads that it would be contrary to public order and morality if Ms K could be permitted to place her life in immediate danger by declining routine medical treatment. It also claims a general duty to protect and safeguard the woman's right to life, and her personal rights generally. Ms K denies the claims. In a counter-claim, she contends the administration of the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse such medical treatment. Ms K also claims that the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person. The case continues.
Thanks Danny!
Perhaps the court needs to made aware WHO told her to consider being given a blood transfusion by force as the same as rape!
The WTBTS puts this image into the minds of its adherents. The parents of the Canadian sextuplets similarly described their children being give blood transfusion as a 'violation'. I believe there are Watchtowers and other WTBTS publications that use the same description.
It then becomes evident who it is who is demanding the death of very sick people who are needing blood transfusions....the WTBTS!
This is one of those cases that makes my blood run cold. I had a huge haemorrage during an emergency caesarean section losing 2.5 litres of blood in a couple of minutes. The hospital and my husband would have stood by my wishes to not have blood transfusion had bleeding continued!
What a dope I was! I only realise now, eight years later that the WTBTS was demanding my death, and I was complying with their wishes! Horrific!
Talk about human sacrifice!
However, it is cases such as this one that make the public aware of what the WT Society demands from its members.
No one should be allowed to die to appease a book publishing company!
Hi
Thanks Danny
Like I've said before on this site no matter how much we try to make excuses and see the good in it
this religion KILLS people.
Thanks
Thomas Covenant
Once again great stuff, Danny! Now, please, everybody go here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/143526/1.ashx
Ian
Judge orders blood transfusion for critically ill baby
http://www.witness.co.za:80/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=15737
05 Nov 2008
Ingrid Oellermann
The Pietermaritzburg High Court granted an urgent order yesterday evening authorising pediatrician Shamila Singh to administer a life-saving blood transfusion to a four-day-old baby boy whose parents allegedly refused their consent on religious grounds as they are Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Singh said in her affidavit presented to Judge Sharmaine Balton in chambers that if the blood transfusion was not carried out within hours the baby probably would not survive.
Balton granted an interim order authorising Singh to administer a blood transfusion and any further blood transfusions necessary to preserve the life of the baby pending finalisation of the case.
“Baby Masondo” was born by emergency Caesarean section 15 weeks premature on November 1 to parents Phaphama and Bongiwe Masondo at MediClinic Hospital.
Singh said she asked the baby’s father, Phaphama Masondo, to sign a blood transfusion consent form soon after birth and explained that there was a great probability the baby would survive if transfused.
He immediately informed her he and his wife are Jehovah’s Witnesses and would not consent as it is against their religious beliefs to consent to blood transfusions.
She described to the judge the deterioration in the baby’s condition over the next few days, and said she impressed on the father that without a blood transfusion, the death of baby Masondo would be prolonged and result in him “enduring extreme suffering”.
He replied that both he and the child’s mother are nurses and aware of the consequences, but that she must not transfuse the baby as this form of treatment is against his religious beliefs. The baby’s mother “unfortunately” agreed with him, Singh said.
Singh said she has obtained advice from numerous medical experts who agreed with her assessment.
On Tuesday she warned the parents that by complying with their wishes she was “agreeing to the death of baby Masondo, which was imminent”, that withholding the blood transfusion meant she was going against the doctor’s oath she’d taken, and that it was her duty to approach the court.
They remained unwilling to agree to the transfusion.
Her affidavit was drawn up urgently by attorney Anand Pillay, yesterday and presented to the judge by advocate Sash Nankan.
[email protected]
