Should A JW Be Allowed To Sue A Hospital For Giving Blood Against His Wishes? (page 2)

undercover

you sign a waiver that releases the hospital from responsibility for your refusal of treatment.

That's what I meant...Thanks for the clarification...

minimus

.....Same question except what if the hospital actually did save a life???

Scully

minimus,

I don't think a "wrongful life" lawsuit would fly. That would imply that the plaintiff had a death wish.

As long as the JW signed a release and refused a transfusion, they would be exempt from judicial proceedings.

I wonder, though, if we are getting the whole picture in the report. We know that JWs will routinely sign waivers refusing blood and/or blood products. We also know that some JWs will have a change of heart and accept a transfusion *if* they believe their life is in jeopardy and *if* they receive assurances that nobody will find out that they have accepted a transfusion.

Imagine if Joe JW goes through the motions of signing the waivers and refusing blood/blood products, but then when he learns that his condition is far worse than an infection in his foot, and could be life threatening (ie, possibly involving amputation) he decides that he'd be ok with a transfusion and verbally consents to a transfusion. Suppose when he wakes up in the recovery room, one of the HLC committee members is sitting at the bedside observing the blood transfusion as it is administered. But of course, Joe JW is going to start crying and saying that he had refused (he did, it's in the chart) but he won't ever own up to giving verbal consent to the transfusion once he realized his condition was far riskier than he originally thought. People lie. People lie by omission. JWs call it Theocratic War Strategy™.

minimus

The way the article sounds, it looks like THEY goofed. If you read any of the comments about the situation, more than a few say that hospital is terrible and understaffed.

Poztate

There is NO way that should ever have happened. I could well understand a blood transfusion if the patient was "bruised in the head" but we all know that if you are bruised (infected) in the heel gawd will kiss it better...

Scully

What hospital isn't befuddled by incompetents and lack of staff?

If they were indeed negligent, then the JW has a case. However, I doubt that the JW can sue for a blood-borne disease that he *might* get. Fine, have it on record that he received the blood transfusion against his wishes, but if he gets any blood-borne disease later on, there are ways to rule out that he contracted it from that particular donation. If he has Secret Sins™ that expose him to blood-borne or sexually transmitted infections, he could easily fall back on the "negligent blood transfusion" excuse to get him out of a Judicial Committee™ hearing.

However, FWIW I was responding to your hypothetical... and extrapolated from it...

rebel8

IMO it should be treated only as a crime, unless bodily harm occurred [then there should be compensation].

All victims of assault don't get payments. Why is this type of assault worse than any other type?

And finally, why should a hospital have to pay you for something a doctor did? Doctors are usually not employees; they are independent contractors who bill patients directly for their services. They should be held responsible for their actions, not someone else, just because the "someone else" has deeper pockets.

garybuss

Should A JW Be Allowed To Sue A Hospital For Giving Blood Against His Wishes?
A competent adult has a right to sue a hospital in the United States.

WTWizard

As I see it, blood is a potentially risky medicine. If I explicitly told them not to administer blood, or told them not to administer blood unless it was critically necessary, and they disobeyed that explicit instruction, I would have the right to sue. Especially in the event of complications resulting from the blood transfusion. And yes, there are people that refuse blood (except in critical situations) for reasons not pertinent to religion.

Plus, if I receive blood for a stupid reason, it is a waste of blood. That blood could have been better used on a patient that was actually critical. It comes down to cost/benefit. If they administer blood just to run up a bill, after I specifically requested it not be used (or to be used only in critical situations), then I would sue, because of their exposing me to unreasonable and unnecessary risk, and because they tried to run up a bill to steal money from me.

On the other hand, if the situation did become critical and death or serious disability would have resulted from not taking the blood, the lawsuit should go nowhere. A hospital administration has the duty to treat the patient, and if they are going to die (remember, these witlesses claim not to want to die), their instruction is to use blood to save the patient. If they fail to do that, they are likely to get in trouble from the State (unless the patient was going to die regardless). And I would hope the witlesses lose a suit like that.

JWdaughter

The thing that got to me is the guy is absolutely distraught over his fear of the blood. He is suing the hospital because he needs to see a therapist to deal with his ABSOLUTELY IRRATIONAL fear of blood that he had pounded into him by the WTS. It is months later. He has no blood borne illness. He has a raging case of mental instability because of the FALSE fears that the WT has put in him. He should sue them. (OK, wishful thinking!)

As to the hospital, if that really did happen, he has a suit. They had no right to do this. And they wasted a valuable resource on this nut.

Should A JW Be Allowed To Sue A Hospital For Giving Blood Against His Wishes?

Share this