Hey Mary I want to clarify I was never implying that she was doing it for the little man, but that it was helping the little man that is all. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the court rules on the clause.
Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion
by VanillaMocha73 58 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
glenster
I think you might be thrown if you try to understand it as a matter of the
sincere belief of the victim if the question in this case is the responsibility
of their religious leader. Are they liable if they knowingly misled someone to
do something that caused them harm?Peter Popoff's insincere affected exclusiveess = the JWs leaders' insincere
affected exclusiveness.Radio transmitter gimmick = quotes out of context to make it seem there's
support in research books that aren't supportive, misrepresenting the
comparison of their distinctive stances with alternative stances, forced points,
and omission of pertinent evidence.Throw away nitro-glycerin and insulin = refuse the medical use of blood and
blood products for yourself and your kids.Same ethics.
-
sass_my_frass
Solution: compulsory seatbelt laws.
-
nelly136
Widow wins battle in quest for benefits
By Matthew Franck
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
12/20/2007
A widow whose husband died after refusing a blood transfusion for religious reasons has won a key court battle in her effort to claim death benefits on his behalf.
Sharon Wilcut of Farmington, Mo., has been fighting for six years to restore the payments, which were discontinued after an insurance company determined that her husband, Floyd Wilcut, unreasonably declined medical care.
The Wilcuts are Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that blood transfusions are a sin. Floyd Wilcut, who was injured in a work-related truck accident in 2000, refused transfusions that doctors said could have saved his life.
The case has raised questions about the limits of religious liberties and who should bear the financial burden for decisions based on faith.
Those constitutional issues triggered the Missouri Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case last month. But in an unusual turn of events, the high court opted Tuesday not to rule on the matter.
Instead, the case was sent back to an appeals court that had previously ruled in Wilcut's favor. Sharon Wilcut believes she's entitled to death benefits totaling $290 a week.
Wilcut's lawyer saw the step as an almost certain victory for his client.
"We're pleased that the widow will probably get her money very quickly," said Robert DeVoto, a St. Louis attorney.
DeVoto said he now expects a previous ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District to be made final. The appeals court had determined that religious beliefs should be given wide deference when it comes to the refusal of medical care.
George Floros, a lawyer who represents the insurance company in the case, said he had yet to fully review the court order and could not comment.
Floyd Wilcut's cause of death was listed as anemia, brought about by severe loss of blood.
Initially, his employer, Innovative Warehousing, and its insurer, American Manufacturer's Mutual, paid monthly benefits to the widow.
But those benefits stopped after about a year, triggering years of legal battles. Along the way, courts have disagreed over whether Wilcut unreasonably refused medical care, thereby disqualifying his survivors from state-regulated workers' compensation payments.
Lawyers for Wilcut's former employer argue that his death has nothing to do with his work-related injury. To pay benefits anyway, they argue, would be to favor one religion over another, potentially allowing such claims by a Jehovah's Witness but not by, say, a Protestant or an atheist.
As the case was argued before the Supreme Court last month, at least three judges appeared sympathetic to arguments by Wilcut's lawyer, questioning whether the court should second-guess decisions based on religious beliefs.
Sharon Wilcut said the case and the publicity that it has produced have opened people's minds to her and her husband's beliefs.
"At least people are asking questions instead of automatically saying he should have accepted the blood," she said. -
Mary
Instead, the case was sent back to an appeals court that had previously ruled in Wilcut's favor. Sharon Wilcut believes she's entitled to death benefits totaling $290 a week. Wilcut's lawyer saw the step as an almost certain victory for his client.
$290 a week? While I certainly don't agree with someone committing suicide over this stupid doctrine, wouldn't it have been alot cheaper for the insurance company to just pay her $290 a week rather than what they're paid their lawyers to fight this?
Sharon Wilcut said the case and the publicity that it has produced have opened people's minds to her and her husband's beliefs. "At least people are asking questions instead of automatically saying he should have accepted the blood," she said.
I find that very hard to believe. What this case has done has brought the whole insanity of the blood ban that Witnesses are obliged to stand by, out in the open and I somehow don't think that there are too many people out there who are now thinking "Gosh! Refusing a blood transfusion and letting my husband die, really makes alot of sense to me!"
-
ronin1
Mary:
If I did my calculations right, they will now have to pay her about $90,000 in back benefits from 6 years ago.
Ronin1
-
bobld
I think the wbts big lawyers wanted to fight this case,just to make a point.Like the lady said so people would see their stand on blood.Lady why don't you tell tell people the truth about your stand on blood.You can take blood fractions..what are blood fractions,where do you get blood fractions.Would you pay high lawyers fees if the came out of your pocket no no no the wbts supplied the lawyers for free on your(their behalf).You say you lost two houses and a car...did you not go to meetings,district conventions,circuit assemblies or sad days and did what the gb/fds/wbts tell you do do.They lovingly told their followers to simplify, sell their houses and spent more time in the ministry.What were you doing with not one but two houses.You stuck religiously to your believes on blood why not the ministry.Did you use the money from your houses to live or pay for the wbts lawyers.Oh,yeah the wbts wanted to set an example and fight the case all the way to the supreme court for publicity.Why didn't they fight the pedophile case all the way to the supreme court.They did not want to protect little children to see their stand against baby rapers,shame on the wbts and you.
-
Pioneer Spit...oh, i mean Spirit
I like the 'reasonable' line here. A reasonable person, no matter the religion or circumstances, would try to save his own life, would want to live.
Did you catch what this reasonable family man was earning? She was getting 70% of his pay, $290 per week. This fella was making about $1500 a month, darn near the poverty line. Of course she wants the $290 so she can pioneer.
-
Beep,Beep
Something I have not seen in anything I've read is the condition of the truck. Was there a defect that directly contributed to the accident? Was it a KNOWN defect (such as the Firestone tires issue a while back)? Faulty mantainence? I have seen some real rolling wrecks on the road and wonder how companies get away with such.
If there was a known defect and the company took no action then how much responsiblity do they incur?