Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion

VanillaMocha73

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/6DC0AC2739BE6E63862573B000160633?OpenDocument Should not she just get a job? Or express her faith that Jehovah will take care of her?

purplesofa

I thought I recognized this woman,

My mother goes to the same congregation...

I did not know about this though.

I will see what I can find out!!

purps

AlmostAtheist

Essentially, she wants the employer's death benefits, as if her husband had died from a work-related injury.

My first thought was, "He DIDN'T die from a work related injury. He died from his decision to refuse blood." So I was with the company in their decision.

But the law refers to "unreasonable refusal" of treatment. The article quotes someone as saying, 'Wilcut's decision was reasonable for a Jehovah's Witness. After all, the judge concluded, while he could have saved his life, doing so would have brought damnation.'

What if committing adultery would have saved his life? If he refused, would it still be his fault? Or an act of idolatry? What if renouncing his faith in his god had some medicinal value?

I'm not so sure where I stand on this. Clearly, the work-related injury started the problem. And clearly, his death was not from the injury itself, but from his refusal to accept treatment that conflicted with his religion. Should the employer be responsible for all the consequences of the injury, including the death?

Don't they say in law that intent follows the bullet? If I take an action that forces you into a position where you must take an action, am I responsible for both?

Dave

DT

Interesting. It appears that this was a suicide caused by the control of a cult. I think the cult should pay off the widow.

funkyderek

I support someone's right to die for their beliefs if they so wish. But I draw the line at paying them for doing so. There's no violation of religious freedoms involved. The company is not responsible for his death and should not have to pay compensation to his widow.

OnTheWayOut

Thanks for posting that story.

I hope Mrs. Wilcut gets her money because there was no deceit on her or her husband's
part. Of course she would keep asking for his benefits. We all would.

At the same time, I hope this leads insurance companies to start considering a clause
that cannot specifically be named, "The Jehovah's Witness Clause" but would effectively
be a termination of responsibility or pay-out if the client refuses certain life-saving
medical treatments. The client would sign that when he chooses a job or an insurance
plan. If he weren't a JW at the time, it would be no big deal.

If JW's had a problem with this, they could be told to "have faith in Jehovah" and not to
use the world to the fullest.

Cases like this one could be precident-setting ones. I loved the decision that was reached
before appeal: "But the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relation Commission, to whom the case
was first appealed, argued that Wilcut should have taken the transfusion. If that was a sin, he
could have repented for it, the commission decided." That's modern thinking on religion's
lack of force in people's lives, but it was thoughtful enough to cause pause for thought.

AlmostAtheist

>>The company is not responsible for his death and should not have to pay compensation to his widow.

Why are they not responsible? What if they had allowed him to become exposed to peanuts, but he had an allergy to them and died as a result? They wouldn't have intended to kill him, nor could his death have been reasonably predicted (assuming they didn't know he had the allergy), but wouldn't they still be responsible for his death, since they took the initial action that led to it?

I'm not entirely certain I disagree with you, FD. I'm sort of limping on two different opinions here, waiting for one or the other of them to collapse.

Dave

purplesofa

The company is responsible for his injury, yes,

But they are not responsible for his death.

purps

nelly136

no one took away his right to die,

no one took away his right to choose treatment or lack of

he got what he wanted, the borg got what they wanted.

armagonnagettum could be here tomorrow, why arn't they just rejoicing

that his resurrection is all but assured, surely thats something money cant buy?

no pleasing some pepes

PEC

Another murdered one by that monstrous cult.

Philip

Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion

Share this