Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion (page 5)

DT

I don't blame the widow for what she is doing. I would probably do the same thing if I was in her situation and still shared her beliefs. This was a preventable tragedy and I think she should get more reimbursement. However, it is the lies and deceit of the WTS that caused this accident to turn deadly. I just feel the widow is suing the wrong people. If the company loses, I think it would be appropriate for them to sue the WTS to reimburse them for their preventable financial loss.

BluesBrother

Of course I am no expert on the law in those parts, and despite what we think, it is the law that matters. However, for me this ought to shoot holes in her claim

Five days after the accident, Floyd Wilcut died. Later, a doctor who treated Wilcut told a court that the sole cause of death was severe anemia attributed to a lack of a blood transfusion. The death, he said, was "totally preventable."

He as not killed on the job. although the accident led to it .

Since the WT lawyers are pursuing her case they must believe it to be winnable . I cannot blame her for pushing it. His injuries sounded horrible, poor man

zack

The WTS response has always been that these decisions are INDIVIDUAL ones. So, the guy accepted the consequences, no one forced him to violate his conscience.

It is a tragedy any way you look at it. BUT, he made a choice.... maybe he should have thought more of the prospect of leaving his wife an indigent and less about his propects

for "paradise." This religion is sickening.

Mary

Burgertime said: 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. This company is just trying to be greedy and get out of paying this women what she is owed.

Normally, I would say yes, the insurance company is simply trying to get out of paying a life insurance policy. However, this company's clause apparently states that refusal to accept normal treatment makes the policy null and void. And by todays standards, a blood transfusion would almost certainly be considered 'normal 'treatment'. The Blood Cards that the Witnesses fill out state that they release the hospitals from all responsibility if they die due to lack of blood. I would take that to mean that they realize they could be saved, and are purposely committing suicide and do not hold anyone else liable for their decision. If that's the case, and if this clause is there in the policy, then I can certainly understand why the company is fighting it.

Furthermore I think this women should be applauded. She is helping the little man by ensuring protection from businesses and insurance companies trying to get out of their responsibilities.

Believe me---she's not doing this for anything as noble as 'helping the little man'----she's doing it for herself and ONLY herself. The Witnesses don't give a rat's ass about 'the little man', unless they're a fellow believer.

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.

If there was no clause then I would tend to agree. However, it appears that the company DID have a clause and hence a good case.

bluesapphire

I must have missed it. They DID have a clause, Mary?

mkr32208

What if committing adultery would have saved his life?.... Or an act of idolatry? What if renouncing his faith in his god had some medicinal value?

Look all I need to know is what hospital can I get into where these things will work... Cause thats HOOOOOOOT....

Gerard

The widow should get compensation from the WT.

Highlander

Let Jehovah line her pocket book with the green stuff.

I really don't understand why the WT corp doesn't have a blood doctrine insurance policy that each member can pay into for cases

like this. If refusing blood is that god damn important, then wt corporate needs to put their money where they lying mouth is. They

sure are willing to invest in attorney fees to ensure that each member can commit suicide at the blood alter(and benefit from it),

but never will they use their 'charitable status' to help out members that are truly in need, financial or otherwise.

Mary

bluesapphire said: I must have missed it. They DID have a clause, Mary?

It looks like they did, from what nelly posted: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/148762/2702131/post.ashx#2702131

VanillaMocha73

I'm fairly sure the blood docs had a clause in there whereby the doctors are held harmless for any loss of life due to JWs decision. Therefore, why does this not apply to the insurance and/or employer?

There is no saying for sure that he WOULD have survived had he taken the transfusion either, but basically he chose his path - why expect others to pay for it? Or did he follow the Armageddon plan of "Don't save money, don't have life insurance, don't have 401K because Armageddon is coming?"

Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion

Share this