An incident in Michigan

by Mandette 37 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  adamah

  Violia said-

  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.

  Yeah, that case was out of Oakland, CA, and it was discussed on yesterday's "Atheist Experience" at the beginning of the show (called "Brain dead IS dead"), when host Jen Peeples talked about it as the featured topic:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xeh96Uk5L8

  Jen also talks of a disturbing case in TX where a women who previously expressed her desire not to be placed on life support was, since she was pregnant at the time of her suffering a pulmonary embolism. So despite her husband's objections (i.e. her next of kin, where he wanted to respect her wishes to let her die with dignity), her body is now being used as an incubator due to laws in TX, which in essence place the interests of the unviable fetus above the pregnant woman's wishes.

  The case is also discussed later in the show, when a pro-life caller brings it up again (at 22:40 min mark).

  Adam
• 

  rebel8

  court opinion 1/9/14

  1 In this case, that shifting of responsibility would place Ms. Rozier’s medical professionals in the untenable position of having to choose between bearing legal responsibility for theconsequences of Ms. Rozier’s religion-based choices or, alternatively, opting not to treat her. In either event, they likely would face legal action,of different sorts. The First Amendment does not require that medical professionals be placed between such a rock and hard place.
• 

  rebel8

  another court doc 1/9/14

  A missed diagnosis is not cause for a lawsuit or other punishment, unless standard of care was breached. This is because medicine is not perfect, nor is it required for providers to perform every single possible examination and test. Again, they must provide standard of care, not be House or some other omniscient being.

  In regards to the actual surgery:

  "Plaintiff is not critical of the actual transplant surgery. Further, plaintiff acknowledges thatthere was a known risk that Rozier’s body might reject the transplanted kidney because it camefrom her daughter, and her body could have developed antibodies during pregnancy that caused her system to recognize the transplanted kidney as a foreign body."

  In regards to the complications after surgery, the patient required plasmapheresis because she was rejecting the organ. She refused plasma replacement and so she received saline solution instead. Now I am not a doctor but I am a professional bleeder. It sounds like her blood was getting diluted from the treatment (see pg 3), and then in 2 days she experienced a sharp drop in her hematocrit and was confused--hallmarks of internal bleeding. Immediate action was taken but options were limited due to the repeated refusal to accept blood.
• 

  rebel8

  The outrageousness continues.

  "plaintiff argued that application of the doctrine of avoidable consequences would violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment by incidentally hindering a Jehovah’s Witness’s exercise of the tenets of her religion and allowing a jury to consider the reasonableness of the Jehovah’s Witness religion, respectively."

  I'm trying to understand this as a legal maneuver that may not have been conceived of by the plaintiff but rather the attorney. Still, it's super annoying. You mean JWs experiencing the natural consequences of their own choices is now a violation of the Constitution?! Gimme a break!
• 

  adamah

  "plaintiff argued that application of the doctrine of avoidable consequences would violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment by incidentally hindering a Jehovah’s Witness’s exercise of the tenets of her religion and allowing a jury to consider the reasonableness of the Jehovah’s Witness religion, respectively."

  Actually, it raises an interesting question....

  So often JWs are fighting the other site of the argument (i.e. the patient's right to refuse blood), that even when they DO refuse blood and the expected outcome occurs, they're arguing for immunity from the avoidable consequences doctrine?
• 

  jgnat

  More:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/270481/1/Nixed-Blood-not-Doctors-Killed-Jehovahs-Witness

  The appeals court turned down the plaintiffs. A blood transfusion reasonably would have saved this woman's life.
• 

  Calebs Airplane

  This can't be right. Jehovah's people always win court cases.
• 

  adamah

  Jgnat said-

  The appeals court turned down the plaintiffs. A blood transfusion reasonably would have saved this woman's life.

  Yeah, that's more like it, and it makes sense, for to claim immunity from the 'avoidable consequences' doctrine based on concerns about the State getting involved in a question of religious practice doesn't even enter into the picture, since the doctine of informed consent implies patients have the right to refuse treatment for ANY reason, whether it's GOOD, BAD, or for even absolutely NO reason. The State doesn't actually care about WHY she refused treatment, only that she DID.

  To claim as they were trying to do is having one's cake and eating it, too.

  Let that be a warning to JWs that "let the buyer beware" also applies to one's choice of religions.

  Adam