US Supreme Court rejects JW blood transfusion case.

by Emily24 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • Emily24
    Emily24

    http://www.minbcnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=1129875#.VH1MijHF_ng

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/01/supreme-court-religious-beliefs-appeal/19734249/

    "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.

    The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of Gwendolyn Rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.

    Rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ. She refused a blood transfusion, in keeping with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Rozier's estate accused the doctors of failing to timely recognize internal bleeding, among other allegations, which would have eliminated the need for a transfusion.

    The Michigan appeals court said the transfusion was a necessary medical procedure under the circumstances."

    http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/01/doctors_not_liable_for_death_o.html

    "DETROIT, MI -- The Michigan court of Appeals ruled in favor of doctors Friday in the case of a woman who died at St. John Hospital in 2007 after refusing a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness.

    The estate of Gwendolyn Rozier sued several physicians and St. John Hospital, arguing that medical malpractice led to the need for a blood transfusion, and that doctors knew about her religious convictions but failed to prevent the loss and weakening of her blood after a kidney transplant.

    Many Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept blood transfusions because of interpretations of bible passages that direct followers to "abstain from blood," according to JW.org, a website run by the Jehovah's Witnesses organization Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

    Rozier, 55, of Oak Park, received a kidney from her daughter in a Aug. 15, 2007 surgery and returned to the hospital three days later complaining of abdominal pain.

    Doctors found that her body was rejecting the kidney and could not save the transplant, in part because Rozier signed documents denying consent for a blood transfusion, and her husband stood by the denial, according to court documents.

    The transplanted kidney was removed and Rozier died Aug. 29, 2007.

    Rozier's estate argued that by prescribing blood-thinning medications, ordering daily removal of blood plasma and failing to recognize signs of internal bleeding, doctors contributed to the need for a blood transfusion and to her death.

    But a Macomb County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case and the appeals court upheld that decision Friday.

    "Reasonable minds could not disagree that reasonable efforts were not made to avoid Rozier’s death and the resulting damages," Judges Pat M. Donofrio and Jane M. Beckering wrote in the court opinion. "The trial court did not err by concluding that the doctrine of avoidable consequences precluded plaintiff from recovering damages for Rozier’s death."

    Judge Mark T. Boonstra in a concurring opinion added:

    "Our opinion should not be interpreted as reflective of any viewpoint regarding religion... In this sad case, Gwendolyn Rozier and her family made a choice, and decided to forego a blood transfusion that likely would have saved her life...

    "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."

    View the full opinions here and here.

    A lawyer for Rozier's estate told the Associated Press the case will be taken to a higher court and that the doctors who treated her were sought out because they had experience working with Jehovah's Witnesses."

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    That is so wrong to sue the doctors because one stupidly refuses medical tretment recommended by the same doctors.

    I`m surprised that any doctor would take on a jehovahs witness patient , knowing the gratitude they get is to be sued if the patient dies .

    smiddy

  • Hortensia
    Hortensia

    Even if they have liability insurance, being sued by a patient's family when the doctors have made a good-faith effort to save the patient -- well, it's very stressful and discouraging. It's still painful to be sued for negligence, even if you are very confident you did the best you could. I'm glad the courts are agreeing with the doctors.

  • steve2
    steve2

    The estate's decision to sue will rightly cause many JW-obliging medical professionals to think twice before providing expert care to Witnesses in future. Who'd oblige knowing the estate could sue?

    If anyone k

    nowingly refuses a critical medical procedure, their estate needs to stand by the consequences of that refusal - not sniff around looking to sue the very medical professionals who respected that refusal.This so smacks of a "Cake-and-Eat-It" mentality.

  • Zoos
    Zoos

    Isn't there a statement on that blood card we were all supposed to carry that explicitly relieved the doctors and hospital staff of any liability for consequences associated with refusing blood?

  • Chaserious
    Chaserious

    This so smacks of a "Cake-and-Eat-It" mentality.

    Well, technically it's a cake and your heirs eat it mentality; and the cake is being dead. Agreed that it's the right decision, but remember that it's one person who decided not to take blood (who, sadly is now dead), and another who decided to sue. We don't know that the Ms. Rozier herself would have wanted to sue, or that the person who sued supported her no blood decision.

    There was zero chance SCOTUS would hear this, whether it was decided right or wrong. This is not really about any constitutional rights, despite the plaintiff's attempt to cast it that way.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    "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."

    Realistically, the decision was NOT hers to make. WT made it for her, and not abiding by WT rules Re: refusing blood, carries heavy consequences for a JW, namely, expulsion from the group.

    It is ironic that JWs will fight the court when it attempts to intervene and force a blood transfusion on a JW child to save its life, then JWs will turn to those same courts to sue the doctors who do the best they can with what is, essentially, one hand tied behind their backs, to accomodate the JWs choice to refuse blood.

    "choices result in consequences".

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Shirley - "It is ironic that JWs will fight the court when it attempts to intervene and force a blood transfusion on a JW child to save its life, then JWs will turn to those same courts to sue the doctors who do the best they can with what is, essentially, one hand tied behind their backs, to accomodate the JWs choice to refuse blood."

    The more fanatic ones probably think they're flipping the bird at "Satan's System".

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    Vidiot: The more fanatic ones probably think they're flipping the bird at "Satan's System".

    Too bad "Satan" gets the last laugh when the JW dies.

    It's the JW equivilent of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Lunacy at its best.

  • wannabefree
    wannabefree

    IWontCallYouShirley "Realistically, the decision was NOT hers to make. WT made it for her, and not abiding by WT rules Re: refusing blood, carries heavy consequences for a JW, namely, expulsion from the group."

    So true. Perhaps the estate should try a civil suit against Watch Tower for her premature death.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit