Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion

by VanillaMocha73 58 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  nelly136

  http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/legal_glossary/c/contributory_negligence.html

  contributory negligence

  This where a court decides that you have contributed in some way to the accident you have suffered at the hands of a third party. The more responsibility a court decides you have, the less compensation you will receive. For example, where a driver crashes a vehicle and a passenger was not wearing a seatbelt. The passenger will receive damages (compensation) for any injuries received, however the amount will reduced by their own negligence, in not wearing a seatbelt at the time.

  he crashed the vehicle (i assume they did all the relevent checks to see if it was defective or the cause of the accident, if it had been the cause of the crash they probably would have paid out for that)

  he refused the treatment that would have saved his life.

  theyve paid out 70,000ish for his medical treatment of his choice and kept his wife on his wages and benefits since

  IF the driving the truck was human error on his part and the treatment was his choice then why should they be liable for full amount?

  he refused treatment that would have saved his life
• 

  Exterminator

  Reading the title of this thread "Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion", I thought she was suing the WTS
• 

  journey-on

  I thought she was suing the WTS

  Actually, that's who she should be suing, imo.
• 

  sspo

  i don't think she should get any money. He chose to die by not taking blood knowing full well he might die, so it is the same as suicide.

  Does an insurance company pay death benefits if you take your own life. I beleive they don't.

  It might not be a bad idea if the watchtower starts offering ideath benefits to the JW's due to their nasty blood doctrine.
• 

  nelly136

  http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/f7cc561a3582e0478625736100555fef?OpenDocument

  SC88618
  Floyd Wilcut, deceased, Sharon Wilcut v. Innovative Warehousing
  St. Francois County
  Right to deny health care after work related accident
  

  The company further responds Husband had the right to exercise his religious beliefs, but Wife does not have right to impose the consequences of Husband's decision on the employer, so as to increase its workers' compensation liability. It asserts any construction of section 287.140.5 as precluding its application to any refusal of medical treatment based on employee's religious beliefs must be rejected, as that construction would violate the provisions of the Missouri and United States constitutions requiring the separation of church and state and prohibiting the state from advancing religion.

  http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/f7cc561a3582e0478625736100555fef/$FILE/SC88618.mp3 oral argument of the case

  the articles longer but i snipped it down, link at top for fuller version
• 

  moomanchu

  Does an insurance company pay death benefits if you take your own life. I beleive they don't.

  Actually, I believe they do.

  You can't sign up for life insurance today and kill yourself tomorrow and get paid,

  After you hold the policy for a time (I think mine says 4 years) they will pay.
• 

  AudeSapere

  (Flagging to read later)

  -Aude.
• 

  SirNose586

  Oh lordy-----this kind of statement could just as easily be coming from a widow of a suicide-bomber..........

  That's what I'm thinking, Mary. The Witnesses don't come out looking well at all in this instance. This is not going to help their image. Dying for no damn reason isn't winning hearts and minds anymore...
• 

  Burger Time

  Some of you guys are making this women out to be evil or something. We have religious rights in this country. Many courts have decided that not accepting blood is a right, and many doctors feel this way. The man died because he exercised a PROTECTED right that he had. The employer would have payed out benefits had he refused some surgery where he had little chance to live, so they should pay out if he choose to not accept blood. End of story. This company is just trying to be greedy and get out of paying this women what she is owed.

  Furthermore I think this women should be applauded. Yea I know JW's are hypocrites, and she should be happy he died for his faith. I could care less about that. She is helping the little man by ensuring protection from businesses and insurance companies trying to get out of their responsibilities. Again this man's right to refuse a blood transfusion is protected. As someone else stated maybe insurance companies should put a clause in, but they don't. She deserves the money she is OWED.
• 

  bluesapphire

  "He died faithful," she said. "And that's why I'm still fighting, so he has the right to die upholding Jehovah's law."

  POPYCOCK!!!

  She is fighting for the money! No one forced a blood transfusion on him. He had his "right to die upholding Jehovah's law!"

  And notice she has Watchtower lawyers fighting her battles. This makes me sick!