by minimus 40 Replies latest jw friends
In Connecticut, a JW went to a Catholic hospital for an infection on his heel and specifically ordered them not to give him blood. Evidently, he awoke from his procedure and realized he was receiving blood! He began to hysterically cry and the hospital acknowledged they had erred. Now he's in the process of a suit against the Catholic hospital.
What do you think about this???
Odd that the doctor would order a blood transfusion as treatment for an infection in the man's heel.
Something smells fishy. But thanks, minimus, for perpetuating the JW paranoia about doctors and hospitals laying in wait to administer blood transfusions to JWs just for the hell of it, just because they have expressly refused such a treatment.
I'll be the first to admit that the JW policy on blood is wrong, stupid, and deadly, but...
I would certainly hope that anyone would be allowed to sue a hospital for administering any treatment that he specifically refused. I (should, at least) have a sovereign right over my own body, and I should be allowed to determine what medical treatments I will accept or not accept.
If you prevent a JW from suing over a "forced" blood transfusion today, you will lose your own right to sue over, say, being given cancer treatments you don't want, or surgery you decline, or...
Just reporting the latest news on the internet!
Gee, I hope no JWs will see this thread.
Forget that the patient is a JW. Forget that the procedure was a blood transfusion.
If you expressed that you didn't want a certain procedure performed and you signed a waiver holding the hospital responsible for your decision and then they went ahead and did it anyway, I'd say you probably have a case.
I agree with you, Sir. Let the judge make the ruling.
The Connecticut Post online has the article and Danny Haszard is on there showing how wrong the Witness view is of blood. Meanwhile, he's irritating some for always knocking the Witnesses.
Speaking of conspiracy nuts...
Man sues over unwanted transfusion
By Daniel Tepfer
STAFF WRITER
Posted: 02/25/2009 11:24:41 AM EST
BRIDGEPORT -- A Jehovah's Witness being treated at St. Vincent's Medical Center was administered a blood transfusion despite his explicit request not to be given that procedure, which violates his religious beliefs.
Hospital officials admit that Andrew Geyer, 47, of Fairfield Avenue, was given a transfusion last year, and apologized.
Geyer is not placated, however, and filed suit against St. Vincent's, claiming he fears he may contract a blood-borne illness.
"St. Vincent's promptly apologized to Mr. Geyer and made immediate improvements to its procedures to prevent this from happening to anyone else," said Noreen McNicholas, director of marketing for the hospital. "There was a proper medical reason for the transfusion, but we acknowledge the patient should not have received it because of his beliefs. The blood supply is very safe, but we are confident that a patient's wishes concerning blood transfusions will be honored."
In the lawsuit Geyer filed in Superior Court, he said he has suffered extreme emotional and physical trauma as a result of the transfusion. In addition to the transfusion being a violation of his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, Geyer said he is concerned that he might contract a serious illness in the future as a result of the treatment, the lawsuit states.
"Mr. Geyer was admitted to the hospital for treatment of a foot injury and made the doctors and staff aware that he would not consent to a blood transfusion because it was against his religious beliefs," said Geyer's lawyer, Ikechukwu Umeugo, of West Haven. "But not only did they ignore his wishes, they gave him the transfusion after he had fallen asleep."
According to the lawsuit, Geyer was admitted to St. Vincent's last Aug. 27 for treatment of an infection in his left heel. After he was admitted, Geyer signed a document on which he stated he did not want to be treated with any blood products or blood transfusions. The following day, according to the suit, during a consultation with doctors, Geyer reiterated his refusal to have a transfusion, and a notation of his refusal was made in his hospital chart.
The suit states, however, that on Sept. 1 doctors and hospital staff gave Geyer a blood transfusion as he was sleeping.
"He woke up, saw what was going on and began crying nonstop," Umeugo said. "As a result, he has had to go see a psychologist at his own expense, and he lives in constant fear of blood-borne diseases."
Umeugo said he has consulted with two doctors who said the transfusion was not necessary.
Actually, you sign a waiver that releases the hospital from responsibility for your refusal of treatment. You assume ALL responsibility for the consequences of your refusal. BTW, refusal (unlike consent) does not have to be "informed".
Blood is a valuable resource - a single unit of donated blood has a value of approximately $500 (Canadian figures) when you take into account the processing, storage and manpower involved. There are lots of safety checks involved in getting blood to a patient, including verification of consent, patient identification, and blood product cross checking. If errors occurred, there were several opportunities along the way to prevent the outcome you allege.
(apologies to undercover - I am still not used to how the toolbar for the site upgrade works)
