Blood Suit

Kenneson

"Jehovah's Witness Sues Over Transfusion"

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/02/23/Jehovah_s_Witness_Sues_Over_Transfusion.htm

hotspur

At least she's still alive to sue the Medical profession! Idiots..... Grrr.

rebel8

The article says she filed it pro se. Link to filing

I srsly wonder what happened & why (if) the doctor ignored her wishes.

As a direct and proximate result of the impermissible, outrageous, and wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe distress, anxiety, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation.

Not to mention your church will consider you "damaged goods like a rape victim" forevermore. And your eternal life is at risk.

Kudra

when you click on that .pdf link it has her name and address too... I think it IS the plaintiff's, not the attorney for the plaintiff...

Incognito

Regardless of how I feel about the JW Blood Transfusion rules, I believe this patients rights were violated.

Doctors often treat symptoms and disease at the expense of the patient. Ultimately, the patient has to live (or not) with the actions of the Doctor. Part of the Doctor's oath is to ‘Do no harm’.

Although in this case she lived, her belief system was violated and she likely now feels guilty and unworthy of Jehovah’s love. She may carry these feelings for the rest for her life. Although the Doctor was treating a physical ailment, he negatively affected (harmed) her psychologically since the blood issue was a major issue to her.

WE NOW understand the guilt and control placed on her by the WBTS, but think about how we would have felt under similar circumstances when we were indoctrinated JW’s. If any of us had made an informed decision on our medical treatment, discussed it with our Doctor, had he/she agree (presumably), signed the necessary hospital directive forms, yet our instructions were not followed, we would likely be experiencing the same feelings that this woman is.

I think most of us today feel we should have a say as to what treatments we are willing to accept, regardless of the procedure or our reasons for accepting/not accepting a certain treatment.

Although we could argue that she was not properly informed since much of her information likely was provided by the WBTS, part of her Doctor’s job is to review what was medically possible in her condition and should matters require blood, alternative blood treatments, since this was a major issue to her.

If her Doctor could not conscientiously follow her wishes, then he should have been upfront and discussed this with her when discussing her requirements before surgery. She could have then made a decision to allow the Doctor to take whatever steps he felt necessary or she could have decided to search for a Doctor that was willing to abide by her wishes.

Incognito

recovering

Something is fishy with the story. The witness filed the case Pro se. Pro se legal representation refers to the instance of a person representing himself or herself without a lawyer in a court proceeding. Perhaps there are other factors involved that compromise a malpractice lawyer from being interested in the case. For example court order to administer transfusion, Family member signing consent. I know malpractice lawyers and it is very rare that they do not take a case.

Nathan Natas

IF this did actually happen, then I would side with the JW who is claiming that her rights were violated.

Given the frequency of mental illness among Jehovah's Blessed People, and the fact that she filed Pro Se (which suggests that she couldn't find a lawyer willing to take the case), I am inclined to doubt that any transfusion took place.

I will be following this with interest.

wha happened?

Yea there's been a number of lawsuits from JW's regarding health care that were filed Pro Se in the past. Most have been comical when the details of the trial are revealed. Wasn't ther one in England where the JW told the court that she should have continued her therapy of tomatoes and eggs to get her blood count up?

Incognito

I re-read the filing PDF. It states that on February 15, 2007, that Dr. Dessen was aware that Ms. Rodriguez was a practicing JW and “has strongly held beliefs against accepting any blood transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma”.

If the above statement is true, them my original post stands, but due to some wording within the filing, I now wonder if the Doctor was not actually aware of her position with blood when he agreed to take on this case.

Perhaps she didn’t discuss being a Witness or the blood restriction with him but is instead relying on the Advance Directive she signed upon admission to the hospital on February 19, 2007. The filing seems to stress the Doctor’s relationship with the hospital and needing to follow the hospitals procedures.

Due to the filing naming the Doctor’s wife as a Defendant in the action, I wonder if this Doctor is an employee of the hospital or is in private practice with only Surgery privileges within that hospital.

If the Doctor was not made aware of her ‘unique’ requirements before taking on her case, this would be unfair to him. Just as a patient can decide to pursue another Doctor if the initial Doctor will not abide by the patient’s wishes, then too, the Doctor should have opportunity to decline a case if the patient’s restrictions are not agreeable to the Doctor.

Any Doctor in regular treatment of a patient, would follow standard medical protocol when situations develop. Standard protocol would likely be to administer a blood transfusion for replacement of lost blood from surgery. If her opposition to blood was not highlighted to him when she consulted with him (only 4 days previous), his first thought would probably be to follow standard procedure. This could be done without even consulting the medical chart beforehand, but recording developments afterward.

If she did not discuss her opposition to blood with the Doctor during the initial consultation, I think SHE is then largely responsible for the outcome.

There seems to be inconsistencies to this story. Paragraph XVII states that the Advance Directive was signed and witnessed by a hospital employee on February 19 whereas p. XIX states that this same Advance Directive was provided to Admitting during the Plaintiff’s diagnostic testing two days prior. An unsigned and un-witnessed Directive wouldn’t be provided to admitting so, which is it?

Although, as some of you pointed-out, this filing seems to be filed by the Plaintiff, I can’t see a layperson knowing the wording used or even knowing how to go about such a procedure. Perhaps she has a previous template to follow or a 'Lawyer wanabe' guiding her through ths.

rebel8

.......or the wts helping her, and just doing a bad job of it.

Perhaps there are other factors involved that compromise a malpractice lawyer from being interested in the case. For example court order to administer transfusion, Family member signing consent. I know malpractice lawyers and it is very rare that they do not take a case.

Malpractice is when a healthcare professional deviated from normal standards of care and harm was caused. No harm, no malpractice. In this case, she is not claiming any physical harm took place; she's just nervous and humiliated. (Maybe she should have claimed it caused her to develop Generalized Anxiety Disorder or Phobia.)

Is this case malpractice--more of an ethical violation than medical neglect? It seems she is filing a civil action for assault.

I happen to have been the victim of a major malpractice incident--and looked in vain all over the country but never found anyone to take my case due to technicalities (even though it surely met the legal requirements, they did not want to take a case on contingency unless they were pretty sure they'd win). I was told this about a dozen times by law firms.

I suspect this woman is lying about some significant aspect of her case. If she had a "good case", she'd be using an attorney. Or she's just stupid.

Blood Suit

Share this