Jehovah's Witness and Blood Transfusion

K-9

Crucifix wrote:

If they had a court order does she have any legal 'leg to stand on'?

She wouldn't have had a leg to stand on without the court order!
Wah, wah, wah!

The Judge made a reasoned decision at the time. I'd say they are appealing the order.

Sinfonia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood
weird

ryanairzer

I'm with the woman. Modern society is much too intolerant of religion. I remember this one time I shot my mother because I discovered I was a bastard child and they tried to throw me in jail wtf.

DemonOfTheFall

If she wins there should be a queue of people lining up to relieve her of 80% of her bloods by slash-hook and hatchet.

Fanny Cradock

aidan24326 wrote:

Damn right it isn't. If he'd rather die (and leave you behind) because of some vague references in a totally discredited book (The Old Testament) then he's a fool and a selfish fool at that.

Oh please come to the Christianity forum with that

Cathy

slade_x wrote:

I dont know of any unit of measurement abbreviated to 'pc'

Completely off topic, but there is the parsec. I doubt that's what they were referring to, though.

SimpleSam06

slade_x wrote:

So you dont think a comment like:

Is a bit over the top

Condemning children for the belief's of their parents.

I think you missed the point, which was about saving children from the beliefs of their parents.

SimpleSam06

thelastangryman wrote:

Whats the difference between that woman getting a blood transfusion and getting semen inside her from having sex?

One of those involved a hell of a lot more booze than the other?

looksee

From what I heard on a news programme the woman signed into the hospital as Roman Catholic She had no english and at the time of the birth another woman was translating for her, and the hospital staff were not satisfied that the patient understood the situation, or that the translator was interpreting the womans wishes accurately.

RandolphEsq

It seems a fairly open-and-shut case; by going to the hospital she agrees to be treated according to the Catholic rules set out by the hospital. One of the rules says doctors must do all in their power to prevent a patient from dying, She agreed to those terms so has no basis to claim

sam34

aidan24326 wrote:

It's easy to say they should have let her die (in a way I wish they had she'd be no loss) but doctors are bound first and foremost by the hippocratic oath and someone 'expressing a wish' be it religious or otherwise holds no water legally.

thats not true at all. a patient can withhold consent for any medical procedure, as long as they are aware of all the risks of having/not having the procedure/treatment, and are able to understand them, ie are not intellectually disabled or demented etc. and if a person is capable of giving or witholding consent then doctors are obliged legally to adhere to the patients wishes. even if its life saving treatment.

deisemum

It's the doctors and nurses I feel sorry for. There job is to save life.

I heard someone comment on the radio this week and said doctors had no choice but to get the court order to cover themselves or else they could be seen to assist someone commit suicide which is illegal.

They get sued anyway, talk about damned if they do and damned if they don't

FruitLover

digitally-yours wrote:

Its doctors job to do everything in his power to save life.

They should also respect patients' wishes. E.g. if a patient has 'DNR' on their chart, or is a Jehovah's witness.

I'm not saying the woman isn't a spanner, but if the doctors were aware that she was a nutbag Jehovah's witness, they should have respected her choice. If I had someone force their beliefs on me, I'd be pissed off too.

Noone here (unless they're also a Jehovie) can understand what it was like for this woman to have something done to her that was against her religion.

Jesus Wept

slade_x wrote:

The article reads 80pc, is that a new abbreviation for percent why not use %

I dont know of any unit of measurement abbreviated to 'pc'


This thread belongs in the religion section

I'm not a religious person at all, but gotta say some of the religion bashing comments are really over the top

fúck all religon.

How's that?

indough

The-Rigger wrote:

fúck all religon.

How's that?

Completely ignorant (and misspelt)

Jesus Wept

indough wrote:

Completely ignorant (and misspelt)

I'm ignorant because I don't believe in Adult-Santa. :rolleyes:

Religion and many of it's followers are the cause of many problems and heartache in the world.



Were you banned from AH Indough for being a complete tit while discussing religion?
Perhaps I am thinking of someone else.

indough

Must have been someone else I don't recall ever having been banned. You're ignorant for saying **** all religion, not for not believing in 'adult santa'

Jesus Wept

indough wrote:

Must have been someone else I don't recall ever having been banned. You're ignorant for saying **** all religion, not for not believing in 'adult santa'

Why is it ignorant?

I dislike religion, that's ignorant?

Or does the word fúck offend you?

indough

It's ignorant imo because it's needlessly offensive. I'm not having a pop at you by the way I just don't think posts like that do the atheist image any favours.

It is a pretty offensive word by its true meaning but I realize you weren't using it in that context.

Jesus Wept

indough wrote:

It's ignorant imo because it's needlessly offensive. I'm not having a pop at you by the way I just don't think posts like that do the atheist image any favours.

It is a pretty offensive word by its true meaning but I realize you weren't using it in that context.

Who said I'm an atheist?

Anyhow, it was a response to the poster who said

' I'm not a religious person at all, but gotta say some of the religion bashing comments are really over the top'

People should be free to 'bash' religion if they want, imo.
It's not above criticism, and shouldn't be protected from free speech.

indough

I didn't say you couldn't say it, I just said it was ignorant to say it. Just because you are allowed to say something that doesn't mean you should. To respond to a post saying

'I'm not a religious person at all, but gotta say some of the religion bashing comments are really over the top'

with

'fúck all religon.'

just reeks of trolling too imo. And there is no free speech on boards anyway afaik.

Anyway who gives a crap post whatever you want.

Jesus Wept

indough wrote:

I didn't say you couldn't say it, I just said it was ignorant to say it. Just because you are allowed to say something that doesn't mean you should. To respond to a post saying

'I'm not a religious person at all, but gotta say some of the religion bashing comments are really over the top'

with

'fúck all religon.'

just reeks of trolling too imo. And there is no free speech on boards anyway afaik.

Anyway who gives a crap post whatever you want.

You're right, there isn't free speech on boards.

I wouldn't consider it trolling because I genuinely disagree with his sentiments and wanted to let him know.

Religion is over the top, the things some people do in the name of religion is way over the top.

We shouldn't have to mind our 'manners' at all times when discussing it.

Tbh, 'fúck religion' summarises my feelings about Religion quite astutely.

North&South

OK, so according to the Wiki page that explains about blood transfusions & all.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood

It says there...

When a Christian abstains from blood, he or she is in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him or her and save his or her life

Therefore, if we take that one line & take it sort of out of context, (Pretty much in the same way that the JH does with the bible) then this is how to reason with it....

Jesus was one of God's children. But we are ALL God's children.... so.. we have all got the same 'father'.... so we all share jesus's blood then right?
So we're allowed to have blood transfusions then, because really everyone's blood is the same, being from the same dad & all....

And no, I'm not religious, but if I was, I'd sure be able to bend the bible to fit my own uses too. :rolleyes:

And for what it's worth, had I been a medical staff there at the time, I would have sedated her & given her the blood - let's hope her little one never needs medical assistance in the future, must be kind of comforting when you see your child in a small coffin that God is very pleased with you.

SimpleSam06

The-Rigger wrote:

Religion is over the top, the things some people do in the name of religion is way over the top.

We shouldn't have to mind our 'manners' at all times when discussing it.

Tbh, 'fúck religion' summarises my feelings about Religion quite astutely.

To be honest, I think there is a lot of confusion about the word "religion" that upsets all sides of the debate. When you say fuck religion, many people believe that you are spitting on their beliefs and those of their forefathers, and are understandably upset. It might be better to say, fuck organised religion, but believe what you like and best of luck to you.

I have no problem with people who believe in God, whether it be Thor or Jesus or whoever, I have likewise no problem with those who read books like the bible and see it as more than a historical account, but a work compiled with the influence of a higher spiritual being. Theres no evidence to show they are wrong, so who am I to hurl bricks? If they want to use these as guides on how they live their life, they could do worse, in fairness, as long as they aren't hurting other people (including their own children).

On the other hand, I do have a major problem with people who believe (or want others to believe) they are appointed by God or Gods, and use that to exert influence on those of less education or more credulity.

The accumulation of wealth, land, authority and power in the name of a vague possibility is an abuse of the worst kind, and should be stamped out whenever possible. I include in this both the Catholic Church and Islam, all of the abrahimic subdivisions, Hebrews (who still saw off parts of the penises of babies, the muppets) and most of the world's religions.

As Diderot said, mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

wheresthebeef

guys there is no need to "relieve" this woman of the blood that was transfused into her. Blood cells die and are recreated by your bone marrow every ninety days or so, so by now, every blood cell inside her body is her own. Stupid Wench!
As a Health Care Professional, I have great respect for patients own autonomy and their ability to refuse to consent to a procedure but I couldn't stand by and let that kind of thing happen. Its endangerment of the child for one thing. So although rejecting blood transfusions might be an important part of JW's faith, i think the inquestionable right of that child to live is much more important. My personal opinion of JW is that they are little more than a cult on a huge scale. Not that I hold a high opinion of many other organised religions but i especially dislike JW ever since they tried to rope me in last year. They kept calling to my house asking for me, until we eventually just told them to **** off. That did the trick.

Terry

The-Rigger wrote:

I'm ignorant because I don't believe in Adult-Santa. :rolleyes:

Religion and many of it's followers are the cause of many problems and heartache in the world.



Were you banned from AH Indough for being a complete tit while discussing religion?
Perhaps I am thinking of someone else.

Consider yourself warned.

CantGetNoSleep

This should be done on the middle of O'Connell Street on a busy day, perhaps by sticking her on the top of the spire by her fat arse

Dave!

sar84 wrote:

Yes its a personal choice but this choice generally doesnt just affect the person making the choice. With this woman, what would have happened to her baby if she didnt get the transfusion? Was it just to save her or the baby too?

That's the main sticking point for me TBH. Personally I think that if someone wants to refuse treatment then that's their perogative. But it's a bit different in these circumstances. If the mother's life needs to be saved to save the child's, then that should be done. But if the child can be saved without the mother being saved, then that's also acceptable -- except, then you have a child with no legal guardian and it has to go into the state's care.

BUT, another thing to consider is -- is that woman really the best person to take care of a child? I would assume if she's a JH, then she would refuse a blood transplant for the child too. That's not a person that I think should be looking after a child, and social services should step in. But having said that, the situation may never arise, and the mother could raise the child perfectly in every other way, and that would be the preference over putting it into state care.

Another thing to consider is -- if the woman is given the transplant for the sake of the child (so that it doesn't have to go into care), how would her feelings be towards her child afterwards? Resentment? Hatred?

It's a tough one, because the child shouldn't suffer on account of the woman's beliefs. I don't give a sh*t about the mother TBH.

Voipjunkie

DaveMcG wrote:

That's the main sticking point for me TBH. Personally I think that if someone wants to refuse treatment then that's their perogative. But it's a bit different in these circumstances. If the mother's life needs to be saved to save the child's, then that should be done. But if the child can be saved without the mother being saved, then that's also acceptable -- except, then you have a child with no legal guardian and it has to go into the state's care.

BUT, another thing to consider is -- is that woman really the best person to take care of a child? I would assume if she's a JH, then she would refuse a blood transplant for the child too. That's not a person that I think should be looking after a child, and social services should step in. But having said that, the situation may never arise, and the mother could raise the child perfectly in every other way, and that would be the preference over putting it into state care.

Another thing to consider is -- if the woman is given the transplant for the sake of the child (so that it doesn't have to go into care), how would her feelings be towards her child afterwards? Resentment? Hatred?

It's a tough one, because the child shouldn't suffer on account of the woman's beliefs. I don't give a sh*t about the mother TBH.

It is a matter of religious freedom you do not have to believe what they believe but you have to respect it.
The state should have no right to force anyone to undergo any medical treatment against their own wishes.
The woman is an adult she can make her own decisions she was of sound mind when she decided she did not want a transfusion so end of story forcing one on her for whatever reason is an assault on that person.

The child had already been born and was at no risk the hospital argued that if the woman died the child would have no guardian.

It is a case of the nanny state thinking they know what is best for people if she is prepared to die rather than have a transfusion because of her religous views that is her right. Just because she is a JWdoes not mean that her views can just be disregarded.

Should the state be allowed to for example to force a woman to have an abortion if continuing with the pregnancy would endanger her life and leave any current children without a guardian even if the woman viewed abortion as abhorrent to her religious views

walrusgumble

kittenkiller wrote:

If they're her religious beliefs and she had expressed them prior to the procedure then they shouldn't've gone ahead with it.
Her decision, if she thinks that the transfusion isn't worth her chance to everlasting peace people should respect that even if we think it's f*uckin nuts and irresponsible.

There have been cases surrounding the protection of a child being raised by people with such beliefs in the States before and it seems to be a very grey area. It's a very sad situation, but my belief is that if it's your life it should be your choice.

This woman could be completely chancing her arm or she could be permanently scarred by this and feel that she will never find salvation after death, which I'm sure for someone with such a strong faith is quite a terrifying ordeal.

the problem is, as the counsel for the hospital stated, the hospital were not completely aware that she was a jevoha, she had previously stated she was christian. furthermore, the hospital previously went to the high court seeking an order to carry out the transfusion, moreover, the counsel, as she acknowledged, thanked the hospital for saving her. she did not have the mental capacity at the time (understandable) to make an informed decision.

you are right about the person's right to have their beliefs respected, it was a case for damned if you did damned if you did not for the hospital. one thing thou, if she was willing to die, well then why did she not stay in the congo, where country of origin information (us state human rights report and uk home office) show that the health systems etc are worse,

whilst it might be tresspass etc, like you say,she is really chancing her arm, wonder will see be claiming irish born child and wel fare now (assuming she is legal)

tallaght01

thelastangryman wrote:

Whats the difference between that woman getting a blood transfusion and getting semen inside her from having sex?

Well, for starters, jizzing inside her probably wouldn't have saved the baby......

Voipjunkie

walrusgumble wrote:

the problem is, as the counsel for the hospital stated, the hospital were not completely aware that she was a jevoha, she had previously stated she was christian. furthermore, the hospital previously went to the high court seeking an order to carry out the transfusion, moreover, the counsel, as she acknowledged, thanked the hospital for saving her. she did not have the mental capacity at the time (understandable) to make an informed decision.

you are right about the person's right to have their beliefs respected, it was a case for damned if you did damned if you did not for the hospital. one thing thou, if she was willing to die, well then why did she not stay in the congo, where country of origin information (us state human rights report and uk home office) show that the health systems etc are worse,

whilst it might be tresspass etc, like you say,she is really chancing her arm, wonder will see be claiming irish born child and wel fare now (assuming she is legal)

Of course they were aware she was a JW that is why they went to court.

And JWs are Christians


And JWs are not opposed to medical intervention they have a problem with using someone else's blood. ( It may seem ridiculous but most religions seem ridiculous to me like for example believing that a fertilized egg is a human being with the same rights as any other human being)

She did not want to die that is why she did not stay in the Congo just because she did not want what we consider to be a simple medical procedure does not mean she had a death wish.

What possible difference does it make whether she gets welfare or the child is entitled to an Irish passport or not it is irrelevant.

juuge

What was she doing here anyway?

Terry

juuge wrote:

What was she doing here anyway?

That has no bearing on this case whatsoever.

JohnnyStones

"It's all about respecting the women's beliefs"

Yes your correct so in a perfect world this women would be dead already and unable to sue the hospital/Doctors

Crea

I read in the Irish Times that this woman had very poor English and had a friend to translate. It was thought by the hospital that she didn't fully understand the extent of her injuries. At the time the transfusion she had lost 80% of blood and was talking about getting a can of coke and some crisps to increase her blood pressure so doctors had a concern that she wasn't thinking clearly in relation to the decisions she was making. After the transfusion she thanked the doctor and told him that she was glad she had the transfusion. Obviously she has changed her mind since. The doctors made the decision based on the fact that she would die without the transfusion and that her children would be left without a mother. I still wonder if she understands that she definitely would have died without this intervention or is she making this fuss to appease her new religious brotherhood.

Guy:Incognito

Crea wrote:

I read in the Irish Times that this woman had very poor English and had a friend to translate. It was thought by the hospital that she didn't fully understand the extent of her injuries. At the time the transfusion she had lost 80% of blood and was talking about getting a can of coke and some crisps to increase her blood pressure so doctors had a concern that she wasn't thinking clearly in relation to the decisions she was making. After the transfusion she thanked the doctor and told him that she was glad she had the transfusion. Obviously she has changed her mind since. The doctors made the decision based on the fact that she would die without the transfusion and that her children would be left without a mother. I still wonder if she understands that she definitely would have died without this intervention or is she making this fuss to appease her new religious brotherhood.

Maybe, but theres also the other possible reason. €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

kelle

JohnnyStones wrote:

Yes your correct so in a perfect world this women would be dead already and unable to sue the hospital/Doctors

But her newborn child could sue for being left without a mother...

JohnnyStones

kelle wrote:

But her newborn child could sue for being left without a mother...

No the child's mother would have already make that decision;(not to take the transfusion) and so who would this child sue exactly?

Senna

I wonder how many JW's die in Ireland each year, who could have easily been saved with a blood transfusion?
In my family of 6, both my father and sister had life saving blood transfusions, so one third of my family would have died by the time i was 18yr, had we been a JW family.

I have great respect for people who have a strong belief in religion, but i'd rather have my family with me.

Dave!

I don't think having a strong religious belief is anything that warrants "great respect", but each to their own.......

eth0_

Crea wrote:

At the time the transfusion she had lost 80% of blood and was talking about getting a can of coke and some crisps to increase her blood pressure so doctors had a concern that she wasn't thinking clearly in relation to the decisions she was making. .

Hmm this sounds like hearsay - if someone had lost 80% of their blood volume they'd most likely be unconscious.

Terry

Perhaps the blood loss was over time and gradual transfusions were given?

DonJose

thelastangryman wrote:

Whats the difference between that woman getting a blood transfusion and getting semen inside her from having sex?

Did you ever get a cock stuck in your vein!!!

Senna

DaveMcG wrote:

I don't think having a strong religious belief is anything that warrants "great respect", but each to their own.......

My parents are very religious and during a particularly tough time, their belief in god and prayers helped them get through it, better than i did. I realized then that religion has a purpose and i wished that i had been more religious. As you say each to their own, it was only a very traumatic time that made me see what people 'get' from religion and i respect them more for it now.

DonJose

Stekelly wrote:

Maybe, but theres also the other possible reason. €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

Exactly. She flees to Ireland as an "asylum seeker", so Ireland saves her life once by not sending her back to "persecution". Doctors then come along and save her life a second time. Then somebody whispers in her ear, compensation. Thats an ungrateful bitch.

Terry

DonJose wrote:

Exactly. She flees to Ireland as an "asylum seeker", so Ireland saves her life once by not sending her back to "persecution". Doctors then come along and save her life a second time. Then somebody whispers in her ear, compensation. Thats an ungrateful bitch.

Can you confirm she was an asylum seeker?

Guy:Incognito

Senna wrote:

My parents are very religious and during a particularly tough time, their belief in god and prayers helped them get through it, better than i did. I realized then that religion has a purpose and i wished that i had been more religious. As you say each to their own, it was only a very traumatic time that made me see what people 'get' from religion and i respect them more for it now.

But if you belived in something with the same level of belief they have in religion you'd have something to lean on too. I get by just fine dealing with things in my life without any hint of religion.

If you like I'll write some random book that you can follow to get you through life, it'll be just a valid and based on real events as the bible (ie itll be a work of fiction) but it just wont be as old.

Sir Oxman

Crea wrote:

I read in the Irish Times that this woman had very poor English and had a friend to translate. It was thought by the hospital that she didn't fully understand the extent of her injuries. At the time the transfusion she had lost 80% of blood and was talking about getting a can of coke and some crisps to increase her blood pressure so doctors had a concern that she wasn't thinking clearly in relation to the decisions she was making. After the transfusion she thanked the doctor and told him that she was glad she had the transfusion. Obviously she has changed her mind since. The doctors made the decision based on the fact that she would die without the transfusion and that her children would be left without a mother. I still wonder if she understands that she definitely would have died without this intervention or is she making this fuss to appease her new religious brotherhood.

Or thought she'd make a few bob out of it.

JohnnyStones

Stekelly wrote:

But if you belived in something with the same level of belief they have in religion you'd have something to lean on too. I get by just fine dealing with things in my life without any hint of religion.

If you like I'll write some random book that you can follow to get you through life, it'll be just a valid and based on real events as the bible (ie itll be a work of fiction) but it just wont be as old.

the Jehovah’s Witnesses's have a book like that already:)

:cool: