Essentially, she wants the employer's death benefits, as if her husband had died from a work-related injury.
My first thought was, "He DIDN'T die from a work related injury. He died from his decision to refuse blood." So I was with the company in their decision.
But the law refers to "unreasonable refusal" of treatment. The article quotes someone as saying, 'Wilcut's decision was reasonable for a Jehovah's Witness. After all, the judge concluded, while he could have saved his life, doing so would have brought damnation.'
What if committing adultery would have saved his life? If he refused, would it still be his fault? Or an act of idolatry? What if renouncing his faith in his god had some medicinal value?
I'm not so sure where I stand on this. Clearly, the work-related injury started the problem. And clearly, his death was not from the injury itself, but from his refusal to accept treatment that conflicted with his religion. Should the employer be responsible for all the consequences of the injury, including the death?
Don't they say in law that intent follows the bullet? If I take an action that forces you into a position where you must take an action, am I responsible for both?
Dave