Doctor acquitted in post-surgery death of Jehovah's Witness

by TJ Curioso 17 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TJ Curioso

  Doctor acquitted in post-surgery death of Jehovah's Witness By Kim Da-ye The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision Thursday that a doctor who performed surgery on a Jehovah’s Witness patient without a blood transfusion at her request is not responsible for her death. A 57-year-old doctor, surnamed Lee, was charged with occupational negligence leading to the death of his patient who died from complications caused by excessive bleeding during and after hip replacement surgery. Gwangju District court ruled that the doctor did not break the law because the patient was aware of the risks from extreme bleeding without receiving a transfusion and was willing to endure the risks for her religious beliefs. “The lower court’s decision that the accused performed the surgery without a blood transfusion with respect of the deceased’s right to autonomous decisions based on his professional conscience is accepted,” stated the Supreme Court in a ruling. The patient, who died at 62, suffered arthritis in her right hip joint, so she wanted a hip replacement. However, she was rejected by three hospitals before seeing Lee at Chosun University Hospital, because she refused a blood transfusion. The patient already had surgery around the pelvic area, so the pelvis, femur, muscles and blood vessels had adhered to each other, and doctors expected a lot of bleeding from another operation performed in that area. When the patient visited Lee in December 2007, the doctor said surgery without a blood transfusion would be possible, but acknowledged the risk of death in a case of extreme bleeding. The patient said complying with the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine was more important than her life, and wrote a statement that read, “While treating, the doctors may feel that a blood transfusion is necessary, but I firmly do not want a blood transfusion and this belief won’t change even if this patient lapse into unconsciousness.” She added that she would not seek any civil or criminal action against the doctors and the hospital if damages occur, according to the ruling. Before the operation, the doctors repeatedly checked her statement. During the surgery, the patient bled excessively and the blood wouldn’t coagulate. The doctors asked her family if they could transfuse blood, but the family members couldn’t reach an agreement. By the time all family members decided that a blood transfusion was necessary, the doctors couldn’t perform the action because it might have worsened her condition. The patient died at night on the day of the operation. The prosecution argued that the accused committed negligence leading to death because he decided to operate on the deceased although he knew of her complicated condition and he had no experience of performing the surgery on such a patient without transfusion. According to their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, based on the Bible, that blood removed from the body should be thrown away. [email protected],

  http://121.78.129.108/www/news/nation/2014/06/116_159884.html
• 

  steve2

  I feel for what the doctor has had to go through in this vainly family-driven prosecution. Talk about trying to have "it" both ways. Surely his Witness patient would have signed a consent form disallowing blood?? And the family failing to reach a timely agreement after surgery got underway? What nonsense! And presumably the Watchtower Society conveniently distancing itself from this unfortunately motivated prosecution.

  So much for a dignified approach to treatment refusal. In retrospect, the doctor really should have declined to perform surgery, given the woman's refusal and her having been turned down by three other hospitals. Not one blessing in sight, a woman now dead and an innocent doctor dragged through court as a moral scapegoat. Shame on the Watchtower in the first instance and the woman's bedraggled family in the second.
• 

  jgnat

  Ditto what Steve said. The WTS cannot lay responsibility at medicine's feet for a potentially fatal belief. Shame on the Witnesses for allowing congregants to believe that they can stick to this doctrine and live too. This woman wanted a pain free life in senior- hood, which modern seniors are ever more coming to expect. Instead, she suffers a medaeval fatality. Stupid.
• 

  designs

  Surgeons have described operating on JWs as having one hand tied behind your back. Sad all around.
• 

  snare&racket

  Taking the Watchtowers advice about bloodless surgery has real life and death consequence, made evident here.

  How sad, how shameful.
• 

  new hope and happiness

  The blood card and my thinking now.

  We signed these blood cards, in our hearts knowing it was wrong.But we never expected to reach the " Venue" where our child was dying, and stand outside the " emergency" door as the doctors fight in vain, because we denied them the blood/ love they needed to save my child.

  Just makes me sick that non educated " elders" on the blood commitee, take such responsibility..and at the hospital my wife works the eldetr ( whomust be late seventies) comes in to discuss " his point of view" regularly...i am amazed the hospital tolorates his social visits
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  According to their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, based on the Bible, that blood removed from the body should be thrown away.

  And yet magically JWs do use fractions.....that come from stored blood...that "should have been thrown away".

  .

  The patient said complying with the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine was more important than her life

  Note: following the Bible is not "more important than her life", it's following JW doctrine.
• 

  hamsterbait

  There was another case cited on this board, in the US, where a woman had surgery, refused blood and died.

  The family sued the surgeon. (frotunately they lost the case)

  Dubbies are really stoopit on these cases, because as more and more surgeons hear they may be sued by the dead JWs family, they will refuse to operate at all.

  GO ON DUBBIES, KEEP SHOOTING YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT!!

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
• 

  cantleave

  Makes me so angry. Don't try suing professionals because of your own stupidity .
• 

  BluesBrother

  It says that the family members could not reach agreement , so I would guess that they are a mix of dubs and "worldlings"...It is more likely that the non believers complained about this. I would believe that the patient would not have wanted this court action against the only doctor who would abide by her wishes.

  Of course it is right to exonerate him