by Mandette 37 Replies latest watchtower medical
Reading between the lines, the family appear to be arguing that, given the refusal to have a blood transfusion, the surgeons should have proceeded with greater care because there would be no blood.
In addition, there seems to be an allegation of poor post-op follow-up medical care.
the surgeons should have proceeded with greater care because there would be no blood
I don't think that's at issue here? The problem was she rejected the organ after successfully discharging from the hospital, then she refused treatment necessary to over come the rejection.
I would like to know more details about this before I decide it is indeed deplorable. Some docs will basically throw their hands up and ask you ( laying there with a very low blood count ) " what do you want me to do? duh, I want you to do what any doc would do. A ER or doc can be liable if they fail to provide reasonable care that ANY first year medical student would know. Just b/c a person refuses blood does not mean they refuse ALL treatment. This used to happen a lot in the past and still does in smaller hospitals. In this area the HLA was good, it did not let the docs and nurses NOT TREAT the Patient b/c of refusing blood. Money and fear of losing licenses spurs many docs etc to provide reasonable care. I speak from intimate knowledge of this and am not just blowing smoke. There can be negligence during surgery and post op. the doc and nurses and everyone are still held to the highest standards of NOT letting someone bleed out if they can stop it. There in is THE PROBLEM. Some docs /etc don't try as hard as they could have falling back on the patients refusal of blood.( the docs etc "get out of jail free" card)
After the docs, etc have provided all known help, then YES, then that would be deplorable to sue if the doc and hospital did all they could.
the surgeons should have proceeded with greater care because there would be no blood
I don't think that's at issue here?
The article suggests that's the angle the lawyer's taking - whether it's justified or not is not the issue here.
If the doctors had forced transfusions on them, the JW family would no doubt have sued for that.
Despicable.
The only practical solution is for doctors to decline to do surgeries for those who refuse blood, where any arising complications may require blood transfusions.
I would agree with you gnat for the most part. however, Docs and nurses do get sloppy and in the past have used the jws refusal of blood as a carte blanche for just doing almost NOTHING. The only way to cause docs and nurses to quit being sloppy and care j( at least in a leagal sense) , is to attach sanctions to their license or cost them money. Otherwise nothing ever changes.
Jws present a challenge and a nuisance to docs. I can see refusing to do surgery but there is always the ER and situations with kids and PG ladies and all that. Once in the situations the docs must try as hard as they can and use all available resources to help the patient.
Recently (news from MA I think)the incident of the 13 yr old girl who died after a routine tonsillectomy. ( not jws) Her mother said she told the nurses her daughter was bleeding too much but was more or less ignored. I guess you know the rest.
I had a amazing friend who bleed out in the ER b/c the docs were so incompetent they did not realize my friend was bleeding until my friend had a heart attack and went into a coma. They were not a jws at all, not even close. The hospital staff was just STUPID. Hospital, everyone involved, were sued and the family WON. I wish I could tell you what happened to me, but it would for sure identify me. Just to say, keep a friend at your bedsides to make sure your nurse and doc do their job. The applies whether you accept blood or not.
JWS are a nuisance in this area but lets hold the medical profession to a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL OF CARE. No free " get out of jail" cards. In short, yes jws make it hard for docs/nurses but refusing blood does not excuse incompetence or sloppy care.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=9387373 ( as a matter of interest ) I know they are not about refusal of care, but the girl was bleeding excessively ,and ignored per the mother.
Overall people in the medical profession do a tremedous job in healthcare .These doctors ,nurses , etc. are experienced in treating jehovahs witnesses , so obviously they have been very successfull in the past . For them to be now sued is deplorable ,no matter who is bringing the law suit.
If on the other hand this team of doctors and medical staff have been guilty of negligence on numerous occassions it would be a different story , but of course their is absolutely no evidence to support that.
For this medical team to try and accomadate the wishes of jehovahs witnesses , and because it doesnt go the way the family expect , then they have the audacity to sue the medical team is despicable .
Why would any doctor want to treat a jehovahs witness under these circumstances .
smiddy
Suing surgeons who have agreed to performing surgery without blood transfusions could come back and bite the Witnesses big time. Registered surgeons are fully within their practising rights to refuse to perform surgery on patients who refuse aspects of the surgeons' own treatment protocols. Should the courts eventually find in favor of the complainants, surgeons would be within their right to cite the damning decision as their basis for refusing to treat blood- transfusion refusers. I am certain Watchtower lawyers are following this with a muted WTF?! nervousness. .
A relative of mine with end-stage cirrosis of the liver needed two blood transfusions and packed blood red cells over Christmas. The staff said he would have died of internal bleeding within hours without the transfusions.
A girl with internal bleeding where transfusions cannot be administered, is a terrible way to go. Not having the best tools available does not make the medical community sloppy.
