Another blood offer for Jehovah (almost two...)

by Aaac 7 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Aaac
    Aaac

    Woman's family blames doctor in her death

    Because of her religious beliefs, Linda Grissom, a Jehovah's Witness, refused blood transfusions in November 2001 that might have saved her life.

    Instead, Grissom, 64, of Imperial, a supervisor at a drug company, died at St. Anthony's Medical Center, about 24 hours after complications from surgery to remove her gallbladder.

    In a medical malpractice case in St. Louis County Circuit Court, Grissom's family is now blaming the surgeon, Dr. Ronald Gaskin.

    Specifically, their attorney, Alvin A. Wolff Jr., is accusing Gaskin of negligently cutting the aorta during a procedure called laparascopic cholecystectomy, a less invasive way of removing the gallbladder than open wound surgery.

    Gaskin also failed to realize that Grissom had approved the use of a cell saver - a machine that salvages one's own blood for reuse - and failed to collect enough of her blood with the machine, Wolff said Tuesday in opening statements.

    Gaskin's attorney, Philip Willman, told the jury: "What this case is about is taking individual responsibility for the choices and beliefs we make throughout our lives."

    Willman said Grissom knew bleeding was a possible risk of the surgery and "she accepted responsibility for her refusal to take blood when blood would save her life."

    The defense attorney said the operation was performed in a proper way but bleeding can still result. He said Gaskin did his best but was unable to collect enough blood with the cell saver to be of use to Grissom.

    Wolff put Gaskin on the stand as his first witness and got the doctor to admit that he inadvertently nicked or cut the aorta with one of four trocars, tubes inserted in the abdominal area.

    Then Wolff talked about Grissom's blood loss, pouring red liquid from a large jug first into a measuring glass holding two cups and then into wine bottle carafes. Wolff filled nine cups, or four carafes plus a cup, leaving the decanters sitting on the plaintiffs' table throughout the day.

    Gaskin, of south St. Louis County, said he has performed as many as 600 gallbladder removals. He said he had been told by his patient that she would not take blood in any form because of her religious beliefs. He was unaware, he added, of a health directive in records at St. Anthony's Medical Center that she had signed. In it, she said she would use her own blood collected through a cell saver.

    Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits them from accepting transfusions of blood from others. Some church members say cell savers are OK; others say they, too, are forbidden.

    Brandon Carroll, a surgeon from California, testified that cutting the aorta with a trocar was inexcusable because Gaskin was watching the trocar insertions on a tiny camera inside the abdominal area. Gaskin was also negligent in failing to collect enough blood with the cell saver, Carroll said.

    Willman said experts will testify later in the trial that there was no negligence on Gaskin's part, and that he met the standard of care of his profession.

    The pro-Gaskin witnesses will include, Willman said: Dr. Edward Mason, medical director of a surgery center in Atlanta that specializes in bloodless surgery for Jehovah's Witnesses patients; and Dr. Griffin Trotter, an emergency room physician and ethicist at St. Louis University.

    Wolff said he would ask for damages on behalf of Grissom's three daughters, Patty, Sheila and Lisa; and Gene Grissom, Linda Grissom's husband of more than 40 years. Gene Grissom was so devastated by his wife's death, Wolff said, that he shot himself within a month in a failed suicide attempt.

    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/4153081BD8F3196C86256E7D00158684?OpenDocument&Headline=Woman's+family+blames+doctor+in+her+death

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    JWs go out of their way to find doctors who are willing to operate without blood. Sometimes, they have to change hospitals. Many doctors are not willing to operate without approval to use blood - its like doing a trapeze act without a net - needlessly risky. Suing the supportive is biting the hand that feeds them. This will make it even harder for individual witnesses to find bloodless surgeons.

    Now they are dying for lack of blood. In the future they may be dying for lack of surgery.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    If I were a surgeon, upon hearing this story I'd refuse to have any JW patients.

    No surgeon is perfect; they all make mistakes. Anyone who has an operation knows -- or ought to know -- this on signing up for the surgery. Anyone who ties the surgeon's hands with stupid religious rules is deliberately increasing their risk. Such people need to feel the effects of their stupidity by accepting the sometimes negative results of creating that extra risk.

    AlanF

  • Gopher
    Gopher
    Gaskin, of south St. Louis County, said he has performed as many as 600 gallbladder removals. He said he had been told by his patient that she would not take blood in any form because of her religious beliefs. He was unaware, he added, of a health directive in records at St. Anthony's Medical Center that she had signed. In it, she said she would use her own blood collected through a cell saver.

    I remember the JW "service meeting" parts where they discussed bloodless surgery. They emphasized the patient's responsibility to inform the doctor and the surgeon of exactly what their choices are.

    It would seem that this woman and/or her doctor dropped the ball and failed to communicate.

    Telling the doctor "no blood in any form" is quite different than her directive that said she would accept it through a cell-saver.

    It's like telling a lifeguard "don't throw me a flotation device" while you're drowning, and then having your relatives sue the lifeguard.

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    If her direction to allow a cell saver was in an earlier document, then I bet that she had either forgotton it or never understood it when she signed it. it seems that when she met this surgeon she repeated the mantra "No blood in any circunstances" , probably nervous about the whole thing. One must feel sorry for her.

    What about the fact that my old blood card says this

    I accept full legal responsibility for this decision and release all those treating me from the consequences resulting from such exclusion.

    Does not that put the surgeon in the clear?

    Yes the card bears my signature.. I can't imagine it now

  • concerned mama
    concerned mama

    My late father was a highly skilled surgeon, well respected for his knowledge and expertise. He specialized in some fairly bloody, higher risk (at that time) surgery. He would NOT do risky, elective surgery on JWs who refused blood. He said he didn't want to live with the knowledge that someone had died on his operating table that he should have been able to save. He had spent many years covering trauma in emergency, and had seen enough JWs bled to death. It was horribly traumatic to the staff to have to watch someone die, that they felt that they could have saved. It was very real to him.

  • blondie
    blondie

    Could it be that she did not know what a cellsaver was and did? Yes, based on my experience with the WT Hospital Liaison Committee. Once again, the men on the HLC, are chosen for their "spiritual" qualifications, not their knowledge or experience in the health field. JWS are woefully lax in educating themselves about medical procedures and depend on and expect these men on the HLC to advise them. Most of the men on the HLCs I have dealt with are smart enough not to advise on medical treatment and refer the JW to their own doctor. But some are presumptuous enough. Many JWs do not fill out their "blood card" or have a healthcare proxy and think they can fill one out at the point of the emergency. It is hard for the medical staff not to believe they are doing under duress and the direciton of the elders/family who are usually present. JWs are taught that their doctor is their enemy, a minion of Satan, determined to mar their Christian reputation with a blood transfusion.

    So many JWs think "I will live forever, I will never die" so make no informed arrangement for their healthcare.

    Blondie

  • Will Power
    Will Power
    Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits them from accepting transfusions of blood from others. Some church members say cell savers are OK; others say they, too, are forbidden.


    Doesn't this say alot! Are they sneaking in the re-use of the sacred liquid as original policy? AND Some say yes - some say no, shows how the bible is clear on the "abstain from blood eh?

    Gene Grissom, Linda Grissom's husband of more than 40 years. Gene Grissom was so devastated by his wife's death, Wolff said, that he shot himself within a month in a failed suicide attempt.

    This is surely tragic. Do you think the husband was a JW also? Would a true member be of course devastated with the loss of his wife but also proud she stood up for her god's policies - not to mention that suicide would mean eternal death. A fading or inactive JW might look at the hold this printing company has on people and find it as the straw that broke the camel's back. Many scenarios I know, but why must there always be JW reasons that make a bad situation WORSE.

    I accept full legal responsibility for this decision and release all those treating me from the consequences resulting from such exclusion.

    So why weren't the blood cards re-issued? or were they? would my brand new JW husband be carrying one?

    Some doctors won't even take smokers anymore - !

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit