A story about a JW man sueing his DR. over blood transfsion was just announced to be on within a few minutes
truman
MSNBC talking about JWs right now, 3:20 PDT
by truman 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dungbeetle
Press the record button?
-
Lieu
Yep...it sure is....630pm EST...errr, uh, right now!
Edited by - Lieu on 23 July 2002 18:48:29
-
teenyuck
They are on right now!! 6:51, EDT
The news guy is asking the doc who treated a JW why any doc would treat a JW?!
He said it is too much to bear....
-
teenyuck
Dan Abrams is the reporter. On MSNBC, if you do a search of " the Abrams Report" you can see a transcript of the show.
For today, you have to wait til a few hours pass...they will post it.
He apparantly thinks JW's are idiots and should not sue a doc for giving them a blood transfusion, which saved your life. That is what he is talking about. A JW in South Carolina is suing his heart doc for giving him a blood transfusion. The JW would have died during the open heart surgery without it.
-
RubyTuesday
I believe he got in the hot seat with the JW and sued to make it look like he did'nt want it.The reporter thought it was a bunch of crap.
-
truman
Dan Abrams had a discussion of the story from South Carolina, of a JW man named Charles Harvey, who had surgery in 1997 for unblocking an artery. He was under the care of Dr. Glen Strickland, who said that although Harvey had signed documents before surgery to refuse blood, Harvery had indicated to him (DR.) that he would consider it.
After the surgery, Harvey began to hemorrage, and since he was unconscious, the doctor contacted his mother whom Harvey had listed as an emergency contact. She authorized the transfusion.
Harvery is sueing his doctor for medical malpractice, battery, and breach of contract. One judge dismissed the charges, but apparently another court had decided to let it go forward.
Dan Abrams thought that these cases would make doctors hesitant to treat witnesses, because they could be required to watch them die untreated. He seemed especially incensed that the man whose life was saved by the doctor's transfusion, would sue him. He asked' "Would he rather be dead?"
truman
-
ugg
my husband is an elder,,,,,his reaction:::::::GOOD!!! they had no right to give him a transfusion....
the scarey part for me?????? my husband did not even question for a moment that the jw might
have given questionable motives....even though papers were signed,,,,it was stated in the interview
that the jw gave an indication he "might" reconsider....but...jw's always right,,,,,worldly are always
wrong.....
-
Crazy151drinker
If you dont want a blood transfusion then why even go in for Open Heart surgery? Odds are you are going to need it. Shit, just die at home and let those who want to live have a chance. Stop wasting peoples time and money.
-
Bona Dea
Crazydrinker...those are my thoughts exactly.
They'd better watch it, or they'll have no doctors that will do
anything for them. You'd have all these pee'd off JWs, if the doctors
decided to stop treating them. "We're entitled to health care just as
much as anyone." But why do they even bother with it? You're better
off just dying and waiting to be resurrected...you'll have a better
life then, right? I feel that Doctors should have just as much right
to decline operating on a JW (without catching flack), as a JW has
the right to decline a blood transfusion. IMO, too much would be
at risk (for the dr) by operating on a Jehovah's Witness. You
give him/her a blood transfusion...you can get sued by the client.
You don't, and they die...you can get sued by the family.
Not worth it!!!! I, personally, would NOT do it.
Bona
Sorry about the double space but I can't seem to get rid of it.
Edited by - Bona Dea on 23 July 2002 19:49:51