UK Newspaper articles. Young JW death re 'no blood'

by ThomasCovenant 38 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  PSacramento

  Very sad.

  However, it is interesting that the boy's first, main and only concern was NOT the normal one of any kind of fear of death, but a freaked out fear of a blood transfusion that over rode the normal response.

  He was more afraid of the consequences of taking blood - excommunication, being a second rate witness, losing his family etc than losing what was more important, his life.

  Therefore, brainwashing was put before real life need.

  The hospital staff made a terrible mistake in not treating him as he was not, as is no Jehovah's Witness, in a proper and balanced state of mind to make such a decision.

  It is time hospital staff stopped putting the beliefs of the tyrants who run religious cults above the right to life of children and adults alike.

  Very well put.
• 

  llbh

  Two observations, Gillick was all about a minor asking for help medically and did not involve a refusal by minors of treatment, it was far more about the rights of the parent than that of the child. Victoria Gillick did want the authorities to give her children birth control without her knowledge, thus giving her, Mrs Gillick the right to refuse.

  Undercover, in The UK the charges will be the same as " criminals must take their victims as they find them", and this case involved a JW in a very similar situation, thus the criminal can not say that as the victim refused blood and suffered greater injury as a result, that the crime should be reduced. The crime has been committed, and thus the charge will remain the same.

  Regards David
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Yes, Llbh, both are very important legal points. The estabnlished right of a minor to seek medical treatment without consent of the parent does not under the law, in Britain, Canada, or the US, automatically confer the right to minors of refuse life-saving medical treatment. These are two separate legal issues.

  Your second legal point is similiar. The issue of whether the minor should be allowed to refuse medical treatment speaks to the legal issues of medical autonomy, at what age, informed consent, parental rights and liabilities and the duties of medical professionals to provide best known practice methods under current scientific knowledge. These really have nothing to do with the criminal issues regarding the driver. One cannot muddy it all up together for the sake of simplicity.
• 

  agonus

  "no blood, no
  blood, no blood"

  like a poor little mindless parrot...
• 

  undercover

  ...the criminal can not say that as the victim refused blood and suffered greater injury as a result, that the crime should be reduced. The crime has been committed, and thus the charge will remain the same.

  Thanks for the clarification...

  I agree with that. The type of medical procedures used or not used aftewards should not play into the charges against the accused. It was because of that person's alleged actions that the innocent person was injured/killed.

  If the hospital had erred and through their error the victim died, should the accused be able to argue that it wasn't totally their fault that the person died? Under UK law, no, but under US law, that argument might be allowed, though probably not likely to win.
• 

  Desilusionnee

  RIP poor boy....happened while preaching, so sad...
• 

  llbh

  I still fail to understand why this poor child was not made a ward of Court.

  David
• 

  ThomasCovenant

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8690785.stm
• 

  besty

  Accountable to what?

  misrepresenting medical facts to promote a deathly doctrine (in this case to a minor child) should be a criminal offense with jail-time for those responsible - parents included.
• 

  dozy

  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/05/19/dying-teen-allowed-to-reject-blood-115875-22268555/

  Hospital chiefs decided not to overrule a 15-year-old car crash victim who died after refusing a blood transfusion, it was revealed yesterday.

  They could have made Jehovah's Witness Joshua McAuley a ward of court to carry out the procedure against his wishes.

  But they decided to respect his "informed decision" to refuse a transfusion.

  Josh had carried a card saying "No Blood" in large type. He was still conscious when airlifted to Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, and repeated the instructions.

  The hospital said Josh's mother and brother had supported his decision.

  But medical ethics expert Timothy James was "surprised" the hospital hadn't gone to court.

  (added - bio Timothy James - http://www2.bcu.ac.uk/law/staff/timothy-james )

  It was not clear yesterday if a transfusion would have saved Josh. He died four hours after being seriously injured in the accident near his home in Smethwick, Birmingham, on Saturday.