Court reinstates suit over blood transfusion

by ignored_one 10 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • ignored_one
    ignored_one
    http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/22456346.html

    Court reinstates suit over blood transfusion

    Expert testimony is ruled unnecessary in the malpractice case of a Jehovah's Witness.

    By FRANK SANTIAGO
    Register Staff Writer
    10/09/2003
    The Iowa Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated a malpractice lawsuit by a Jehovah's Witness follower against a Waterloo hospital and doctor who allegedly gave the man a blood transfusion despite warnings that it violated his religious beliefs.

    In separate cases, the court also struck down a portion of the grandparents' visitation rights law and determined that the front steps and hallway of an apartment house are public places.

    In the transfusion case, the justices said Lester Campbell was not required to have an expert witness to establish fault or how much money might be awarded in damages. The lawsuit had been dismissed by the trial court.

    Lawyers for Campbell said the case was a first in Iowa. Campbell sued Dr. Arnold Delbridge and Covenant Medical Center, where he underwent routine knee surgery and was given his own blood. Campbell said he warned hospital officials that no blood, including his own, should be put into his body.

    The hospital's lawyers said Campbell's blood was saved in the event that he might change his mind or it became a medical necessity. Campbell claimed there was a communication breakdown and blamed it on hospital workers and a mix-up in patient charts.

    "It continues to be a problem where a Jehovah's Witness patient says, "I don't want it," but because of oversight, carelessness or deliberate disregard of the patient, these things happen," said Donald Ridley, spokesman for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. The organization aided Campbell in his legal fight.

    "This is an assault on their dignity," Ridley added. "It's something very important to them before their God, and things like this happen despite their efforts to avoid them."

    Douglas Coonrad, a Hudson lawyer who represented Campbell, praised Wednesday's ruling.

    "I'm happy that people who have something happen to them have the opportunity to present their case to a jury," he said.

    Coonrad said the high court has grappled for years over when expert testimony is necessary in emotional stress cases.

    "I don't believe, in our jury system, you need to clog up the courts with experts," he said. "Under circumstances where things are clear enough you can trust lay persons, then they should be allowed to testify."

    The court said: "The evidence concerning the lack of communication between the doctor and nurses, the possible mix-up in patient charts . . . (is) capable of being resolved by a fact finder without testimony of experts."

    Meanwhile, in a Polk County case, the high court struck down yet another portion of a law that guarantees visitation rights for grandparents. It is the third time the court has declared portions of the law unconstitutional.

    Records show that Arnis and Lucille Lamberts wanted regular visits with their grandchildren, who are about 7 and 4 years old, but the children's father, John Lillig, refused. The children's mother died in 1999 of complications from their youngest child's birth and Lillig remarried. The Lamberts had gone to court, saying state law assured them visitation rights.

    The justices ruled Wednesday that the state should not interfere with parents' rights unless the parents were unfit.

    "In all these cases, the circumstances are tragic," said Stacey Warren, the Lamberts' lawyer. "These children are the only links to their daughter. They can see their daughter in their grandchildren."

    In a Johnson County case, the court ruled that the front steps and hallway of an apartment building are public places. The decision reinstates alcohol-related charges against Jennifer Booth, who was arrested at an apartment house in August 2001 with an open container of alcohol.

    Wednesday's ruling said: "It is undisputed that each of her fellow tenants had the right to come and go through the front steps and common hallway of the apartment house, meaning the public 'has or is permitted access' to these areas."

    -

    Ignored One.

  • little witch
    little witch

    Life is stranger than fiction, is it not?

    I wish this nut all the luck trying to impress a jury to reward him for the "negligence" inflicted upon him.

    Keeping in mind, a doctors first oath is to do no harm.

    I don't think he has a snowballs chance of convincing a normal person that he was harmed in any way.

  • happyout
    happyout

    Since he did not agree to the transfusion, he cannot argue that he was forced to disobey his beliefs. Plus, I imagine this saved his life.

    Next time let him die like he wants.

    Happyout

  • Uzzah
    Uzzah

    The best defense the doctor could take is that he wasn't sure what kind of Jehovah's Witness he was dealing with.

    Some JW's do accept their own blood gathered during the surgery, others accept some blood components, others won't even take a vaccine if it has trace amounts of blood in it.

    How can the doctor and hospital be faulted when most JW's do even understand what they can and cannot accept.

    Uzzah - who has plenty of opinions but none of which should be construed as legal advice.

  • Scully
    Scully

    Donald Ridley, spokesman for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York says:

    "This is an assault on their dignity"

    And what happened to Vicki Boer was not "an assault on HER dignity"??

    Love, Scully

  • Valis
    Valis

    Well, it probably won't do any good, but I wrote to the Register. Can't blame an Apostate for trying...*LOL*

    Re: Iowa Supreme Court and Jehovahs Witnesses. You recent report by Frank Santiago raises red flags all the way down in Texas. In all such cases I think the court should step in, or the doctor in charge of the patient should be able to make a descision to save a life without being sued by a religious zealot who, in fact, was saved by a blood transfusion. I would encourage you, your readers, and the Supreme Justices of the great state of Iowa to have a look at the following website and tell me. Are the lost lives of the children and adults who have died because of the refusal to accept blood worth enforcing an ancient belief that has no business in a modern world? I would certainly hope they would be much more precious than that, moreso enough to save them at all costs. Even if it meant angering their version of god. One has to ask themselves why a loving god would prefer you dead versus say living and alive to preach again another day?
    http://www.ajwrb.org

    Sincerely,

    District Overbeer

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    I think the ajwrb will open their eyes.

    I think that the doctor's lawyer should see it, and also copies of the Blood magazine so that they can prove how brainwashed these people are.

    I can just see the lawyer confronting him about his beliefs about blood are:

    What religion are you?

    Jehovah's Witness

    Would you accept a transfusion from cow's blood, hemoglobin, albumin, globulin, immunoglobulins, etc.?

    -yes.

    Why?

    Because the bible tells me I can.

    Where?

    What do you mean where?

    I don't know but it is really the Watchtower which tells me which components and practices I can accept and which I can not.

    So, it's really the WT you believe in, and not the bible?

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Okay, I have to disagree with the above posts.

    One of the main reasons I am leaving the Witnesses is because I believe in the right to self-determination. For the government or doctors to start claiming that they have a right to give someone treatment against their own beliefs--however misguided those beliefs might be--is very dangerous.

    I agree that since there was no physical harm, and the emotional harm was no doubt minimal, Campbell does not deserve a large settlement. But that doesn't mean that he has no case.

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    Euphemism:

    One of the main reasons I am leaving the Witnesses is because I believe in the right to self-determination. For the government or doctors to start claiming that they have a right to give someone treatment against their own beliefs--however misguided those beliefs might be--is very dangerous.

    What is someone wants to kill himself and feels the only way out is suicide?

    What if they want to kill themselves because they were DFd and want to end it all before Armaggeddon?

    What if the doctors realize that these people are under the control of a dangerous group, and not in control of their faculties?

    I am mostly supporting the minors.

    Talk to people who left the cult, but previously allowed their families to die rather than receive blood.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    The report mentions Donald Ridley as the PR guy... so what happened to J.R. Brown?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit