by Mandette 37 Replies latest watchtower medical
Chase :
The HUSBAND upheld his wife's decision. What non-witless would have done that in a life or death situation?
Suing just shows that they want money money money. Presumably to buy off their guilty conscience....
Those Doctors will never again help a jdub.
The HUSBAND upheld his wife's decision. What non-witless would have done that in a life or death situation?
Suing just shows that they want money money money.
Yes, the husband upheld her decision to refuse blood. But the husband isn't the representative of the estate, according to the lawsuit. The representative of the estate gets to decide whether to sue or not. So how do you know that whoever decided to sue is a JW? Not saying they aren't; just that it doesn't seem possible to tell, although many have assumed that to be the case.
That's when I think, sorry but I do think: "Dumb asses."
Another one bites the dust.
I hope some JW's post this so I can comment on how ridiculous it is to pursue this lawsuit and what reproach this bring on JW's in eyes of local community and doctors.
Rejection is a risk with any transplant. An acquaintance of mine rejected two donated kidneys (one of which was a nearly perfect match) and is on dialysis to this day.
I agree that's it's silly to unnecessarily tie the providers hands by making the case more challenging than it need be, but the doctors ALSO have to right (if not the RESPONSIBILITY) to refuse to treat the patient if they feel the request is unreasonable and they don't possess the special skills required (i.e. bloodless surgery techniques) that will allow them to treat the patient's condition witout violating standards of care. If they don't feel they can do so, the doctor has an ethical and legal obligation to refer the patient to a collegue who CAN treat the patient, and presumably the local docs did this, and referred to this team of specialists who are being sued for taking on a difficult case.
Such providers would be wise to lower expectations of outcomes, carefully DOCUMENTING IN WRITING that the patient is tying their hands and understands that she may die as a result, since that helps protect them if the family or estate should decide to sue; a really-tight informed consent document discourages litigation, but cannot prevent it.
There apparently were sufficent grounds to question the medical care rendered under the circumstances (eg use of blood-thinners is an eyebrow-raiser, esp when bloodless techniques are to be used; it would require a 'risk vs benefit' analysis on the part of the providers), but in the end, the judges ruled that "reasonable efforts" were taken (which allows for SOME medical errors to have been made in rendering her care), and that the 'doctine of avoidable consequences' outweighs any errors in medical care that may have occurred, since the patient played a significant contributory role in making a difficult situation even worse by tying the hands of the providers by refusing blood, in the first place.
Judge Boonstra confirmed the patient's right to refuse medical treatment (for ANY reason, or what many others may see as BAD reasons, or even for NO reason at all), when he said:
"The choice was hers to make, whether for reasons of religion, or for altogether different reasons entirely, or in fact for no reason at all. But as in any aspect of life, where choices result in consequences, Ms. Rozier’s choice resulted in a consequence for her. Sadly, that consequence was her death."
So in essence, refusing blood allows more room for other errors to be made by the doctors, since the patient has knowingly signed away the right to complain if an undesirable outcome (like death) results.
Adam
what a convoluted story. sad situation - but if you determine to put limitations on the medical treatment you receive, suing after the fact is not ethical.
Way to go GB you managed to murder another innocent victim with your stupid teachings.
I feel sorry for these doctors. I hope they start telling JWs to find another doctor.
"The choice was hers to make, whether for reasons of religion, or for altogether different reasons entirely, or in fact for no reason at all. But as in any aspect of life, where choices result in consequences, Ms. Rozier’s choice resulted in a consequence for her. Sadly, that consequence was her death."
I'd call the logic of that statement self-evident. I hope the doctors and hospital were awarded attorney's fees (a rare outcome, I admit).
