Court decides to give Congolese woman transfusion

Archeron

You may have heard about this on the news. A Congolese woman has given birth in one of Dublins hospitals, and suffered from a complication resulting in her needing a blood transfusion to save her life. However, as the woman is a Jehovah's witness, she was refusing the life saving treatment.

I heard on the news today that the courts had decided that the childs welfare took priority over the womans religious choices and that the hospital should carry out the transfusion to save her life, and thus allow her to be able to look after her child.

Personally, I think it was a good decision by the courts as it would have been very sad for the child to grow up without his/her mother. I wonder if this will affect future cases similar to this in the future.

What do you think about this?

aidan_walsh

While in this case there is obviously greater good coming of the decision, I do think it sets an unfortunate precedent of a hospital being able to overrule a patients wishes regarding a medical procedure.

stepbar

Archeron wrote:

I heard on the news today that the courts had decided that the childs welfare took priority over the womans religious choices and that the hospital should carry out the transfusion to save her life, and thus allow her to be able to look after her child.

Proper right, religion or no religion what kind of mother puts her religion over the welfare of her child? She is a utter fool.

Sleepy

A victory for common sense imho.

Paddy_Irishman

Thats all well and good but if you look at this way....

Could have been one less knock on the door and an annoying 20minute conversation ending in you telling them they have converted you to islamic .

Dave!

Sleepy wrote:

A victory for common sense imho.

Aye

bonkey

aidan_walsh wrote:

While in this case there is obviously greater good coming of the decision, I do think it sets an unfortunate precedent of a hospital being able to overrule a patients wishes regarding a medical procedure.

To be fair, the precedent it sets is that the hospital can overrule a patient's wishes to keep them alive when the welfare of a dependant third party is at stake.

I'm not saying that this doesn't raise some hairy questions of its own, mind.

Ruu_Old

I hope the parent can see the greater good in the decision.

Capt'n Midnight

Part of the decision was based on them not being able to contact any other relative. If the mother died there would be no one to look after the child.

The decision may have been different had there been other relatives available to look after the child.

stepbar

Leaving that aside for a moment to think that for one moment a person would choose to die because their "religion" tells them they cant accept a blood transfusion is shocking. And because there is a child involved makes it even more shocking.

iguana

stepbar wrote:

Leaving that aside for a moment to think that for one moment a person would choose to die because their "religion" tells them they cant accept a blood transfusion is shocking. And because there is a child involved makes it even more shocking.

Particularly when to my understanding the bible passage they are referring to says something like "do not take another's blood." As in, don't be stabbing people and making them bleed. Not, if someone kindly allows their blood to be given to someone who needs it, just say no.

Obvious really as blood transfusions weren't commonplace in biblical times.

bounty

bloody religious zealots

should have let her die

AdMMM

bounty wrote:

bloody religious zealots

should have let her die

I hope you're not being serious!

I do find it hard to believe that someone would be willing to jepordise two lives in the name of religion. Hopefully she'll realise that the right decision has been made.

Endymion

aidan_walsh wrote:

While in this case there is obviously greater good coming of the decision, I do think it sets an unfortunate precedent of a hospital being able to overrule a patients wishes regarding a medical procedure.

From the title it says a court decided it, not the hospital. I have little problem with that precedent.

|.Murderer.| go re-read you post again. People puting religion before human life, it happens every day.

bounty

|.Murderer.| wrote:

I hope you're not being serious!

I do find it hard to believe that someone would be willing to jepordise two lives in the name of religion. Hopefully she'll realise that the right decision has been made.

lol indignatious outrage from someone called 'murderer'

screw the mad bitch, natural selection at work

Spitfire666

common sence prevails. bout time.
If it wasnt for the kid involved id say let her die coz shes not much of a loss if shes that thick.

aidan_walsh

From the title it says a court decided it, not the hospital. I have little problem with that precedent.

Well yes of course, but the hospital had to initiate the action. Anyway, bonkey was correct, I was a little wide in scope with that comment in hindsight. But either way its not a good place to be in, IMO.

nesf

bonkey wrote:

To be fair, the precedent it sets is that the hospital can overrule a patient's wishes to keep them alive when the welfare of a dependant third party is at stake.

I'm not saying that this doesn't raise some hairy questions of its own, mind.

It's intervened before where there wasn't a third party involved iirc.

0utshined

bounty wrote:

natural selection at work

Not really dude, she's already spawned.:)

I'm in two minds on this. I reckon if someone wants to die they should be let. The fact that there's a kid involved does complicate it a bit but I think I'm leaning towards the "she should be allowed die" side. If she's willing to die when there is an easy way not to then what other wacky decisions is she liable to make while raising the kid. Yeah, you can use the "it's her religion" argument but when it comes down to it if she's willing to die for a reason like that then I think she's a crazy. I mean jeez, if religion is that important to her she should lie or sin and repent or something but at least fúcking live!

iguana

0utshined wrote:

If she's willing to die when there is an easy way not to then what other wacky decisions is she liable to make while raising the kid.

Very good point. In fact what happens if in 5 years time the kid needs a blood transfusion and she disallows it?

Nevyn

iguana wrote:

Very good point. In fact what happens if in 5 years time the kid needs a blood transfusion and she disallows it?

The courts have acting in such a cases with a child before before,
the child gets made a tempory ward of the state and has the operation.

L31mr0d

? I suppose it is the AH

If you where told that you needed an emergency heart transplant, and that they where going to kill, say a homeless person, to save your life. Morally you would object and would more than likely let yourself die if there wasn't an alternative. To this person her decision to not have a blood transfusion keeps her morally clean and the alternative would be morally reprehensible.

Now I know you can argue that my argument is way out there and never likely to happen, but i'm using it as an example of morals and principles. Just because yours differ from anothers does not mean they are wrong? What wouldn't you do to save your own life or that of your child? Everybody has beliefs and principles which they would rather die for than break. This happened to be hers, I can think of a few that I would rather die than do and I view it as my right to die with those moral standards intact. For someone to force me to break them goes against everything that is supposed to make us free as human beings.

0utshined

It's not the child that this case is about though Thaedydal. A child can't make that decision for themselves but this case is about a (supposedly) compus mentis adult which makes it all the more interesting.

0utshined

L31mr0d wrote:

If you where told that you needed an emergency heart transplant, and that they where going to kill, say a homeless person, to save your life. Morally you would object and would more than likely let yourself die

I've got to disagree with you on that. For me I would rather a thousand people I don't know die so that I could live. Yeah I sound like a shít but if people are honest with themselves I suspect the majority would be the same.

I do take your point that there are some beliefs that are worth dying for and that they are up to the individual to decide on. The freedom of your children? Yes. The safety of your country and way of life? Yes. Some religous belief? Not for me but if you're an adult and it makes you happy, sure. I don't agree with it but I guess I can respect it.

Nevyn

It's not the child in this case but the judge used the child as the reason for issuing the court order. If there was the child to be taken into consideration then she would have been left to die or reover with out the blood transfusion.

So what next a parent being court ordered to take chemotheraphy ?
to not drink ? a parent has less say over thier bodily intergity then a non parent ?

0utshined

Oh okay, your second post is making a completely different point to your first. I think I would agree with your second post, the judge has made an incorrect ruling and set a dangerous precedent. It can be appealed, sure, but after the she's got the transfusion has been given and the damage has been doen so to speak. An adult should be allowed to make decicsions for themselves no matter how harmful those decisions may be.

Edit: Just reread that and I sound like a bit of a díck to Thaed. Didn't mean to be but I'm not sure how to rephrase it to not be right now. Thaed.

Nevyn

lol I was making two differnt points, the first in reply to the post about a child needed a trans fusion or an operation and the parents refusing to consent.

The second was about the current case.
IT is a dangerous precedent and gives the child rights by the precdent that do not exist under law currently.

FranknFurter

Thaedydal wrote:

So what next a parent being court ordered to take chemotheraphy ?
to not drink ? a parent has less say over thier bodily intergity then a non parent ?

Even though I find the thought of being "forced to live" abhorrent, I have to say, thats the one exception I would make.

To my mind, if you decide to have a kid, then until that kid is old enough to be independant and mae their own informed decisions, its up to you to be there to bring him / her up if its at all possible for you.
I dont feel a religious belief should entitle you to give up that responsibility.

b

Calibos

The reason JW's would rather die than get a blood transfusion is that they think they will be barred from heaven if they get one. ie. Reject transfusion, die now but get into heaven or accept transfusion live another 50 odd years then die but be barred from heaven and go to hell.

Still, I don't think this particular belief is any more wacky than anything else in any other religion. It all wishful thinking. Yes, the universe is exactly the way I would wish it to be. ie I never really die but live on into eternity in eternal bliss, I get to meet all my family in the afterlife, the unpunished on earth in life get punished in the afterlife. Wow, what a stroke of luck. The gods and universe have granted my every wish. Speaking of luck. How lucky am I that I happened to be born in a Catholic country and raised in the One true Faith™. Pity all those Hindu's and muslims and especially protestants being born in the wrong country or part thereof!

R0ot

Id be more concerned with what will happen to the woman and child later on, a m8 of mine is a JW and ive heard of people being excommunicated from the religon for various reasons and this sounds like one that they'd do it for too. And from the OP's post id say the woman would be very depressed if she is excommunicated, and may take that depression out on the child. Damn religons! :mad:

bizmark

This is a disturbing development to say the lest whats next i wonder to be forced on you for the "best interests of the children" or yourself? perhapes the goverment figures it isnt in my or my familys interest if i quit the job i hate etc.

Very disturbing

o1s1n

JWs dont believe they will go to heaven. (well, 144,000 will, included in these are all the original christians from the time of jesus). the vast majority of them will go living on the earth..which will of course have been turned into a paradise (equally as wacky as the heaven idea if you ask me). the reason they dont take blood is simply because Acts 15:29 states, "abstain from blood".
i honestly believe they have taken this way too far, and in no way should relate to modern medecine. if jesus were alive today, and someone were dying and needed a blood transfusion, i think he'd be first in line to take his arm out and pop in a needle.

oh and the excommunication you speak of is called "disfellowshipping". this happens if someone commits a gross sin and is unrepentant. the blood transfusion was done without this womans consent. i really doubt theyre going to kick her out for a decision she didnt even make

o1s1n

just thought i'd set some facts straight. i absolutely hate this religion (for my own personal reasons, which i wont go into here!) but i still feel the need to correct people when they state something about it that isnt true. hmmm. odd one that. maybe i need counciling

The Gentleman

While following this debate during the week a couple of pertinent facts occurred to me.

1. The bible, in it's english form, cannot be interpreted literally as it has been translated from another language, hebrew I think. Even when it (the bible) was first written it was documented by mere men. If you get ten men (or women) to write an account of the same event you will get ten different versions. I believe it is very, nay extremely, dangerous to interpret literally any scripture. The proponents will say that the scripture is infallible and that it was written with divine intervention blah blah, but the fact is that religious fundamentalists are basing their whole existence on the writings of other men. Odd, to say the least.

2. The congolese women is in Ireland. I wonder if she is an economic migrant? I was always under the impression that if a person makes a decision to leave their homeland and move elsewhere then they are, by default, accepting the laws and rulings of that land as binding on themselves. I believe the correct decision was made as she has a responsibility to her child that cannot be abrogated by a religious belief. We, as a country, have become secularised and do not follow church law. We have shrugged off the many years of religious rule and have become the better for it. It was natural that the court would ignore the woman's religious beliefs when making a ruling as I would expect the court to behave likewise if a catholic was similarly challenged.

RedPlanet

The Gentleman wrote:

While following this debate during the week a couple of pertinent facts occurred to me.

1. The bible, in it's english form, cannot be interpreted literally as it has been translated from another language, hebrew I think. Even when it (the bible) was first written it was documented by mere men. If you get ten men (or women) to write an account of the same event you will get ten different versions. I believe it is very, nay extremely, dangerous to interpret literally any scripture. The proponents will say that the scripture is infallible and that it was written with divine intervention blah blah, but the fact is that religious fundamentalists are basing their whole existence on the writings of other men. Odd, to say the least.

Translating the books that are compiled as "the Bible" has been a matter of debate and study by, many, many scholars for centuries. Of course it is a person's perogative if they choose to believe in it or not, if they choose to interpret things literally. It isn't really odd that people do that, people have been doing just that forever.

The Gentleman wrote:

2. The congolese women is in Ireland. I wonder if she is an economic migrant? I was always under the impression that if a person makes a decision to leave their homeland and move elsewhere then they are, by default, accepting the laws and rulings of that land as binding on themselves. I believe the correct decision was made as she has a responsibility to her child that cannot be abrogated by a religious belief. We, as a country, have become secularised and do not follow church law. We have shrugged off the many years of religious rule and have become the better for it. It was natural that the court would ignore the woman's religious beliefs when making a ruling as I would expect the court to behave likewise if a catholic was similarly challenged.

She was following law.
For example she was carrying a card that apparently has some basis in law.
The card specifies that she should not receive a blood transfusion, the card was signed by herself and 2 witnesses. Seems most Jehovah's Witnesses carry this card. I was speaking to one, they said the card is a legal document.
Anyway, it's shocking that the hospital and court can just willy nilly throw your beliefs and wishes aside like that. There should be strict regulations regarding things like this.

Moral of the story: Do NOT get preggers in Ireland, your rights will be out the window.

Mossy Monk

Spitfire666 wrote:

common sence prevails. bout time.
If it wasnt for the kid involved id say let her die coz shes not much of a loss if shes that thick.

that's unfair. its her religious belief

L31mr0d

regardless of her religious beliefs, this issue shouldn't of even had case to be raised. There are plenty of modern methods of bloodless surgery and blood alternatives out there so as for this not to be an issue anymore. Its understandable in 3rd world countries to continue using transfused blood as they can't afford the equipment needed to offer bloodless surgery, but we are supposed to be a 2nd if not 1st world country here. The way it stands at the moment bloodless surgery is actually better in most cases for the patient than transfusing blood, as it reduces convalescing time and the likelyhood of your body rejecting it or the possibility of contracting another disease born within the transfused blood.

Ireland needs to get its finger out and realise that there is a world of modern medicine and methodologies out there that we have yet to invest in for fear of thinning the bottom line. As it stands in this country atm i'm actually more scared of the methods the hospitals might use to cure me rather than the disease itself.

Bloodless services

Pigman II

bounty wrote:

bloody religious zealots

I like it.

Anyway I agree, Not enough people dying for their beliefs these days I reckon.

bluto63

Another reason I hate organized religion. But I must say that the woman should of been allowed to die if she wanted. It's immoral to force someone to do something like this, almost as bad as killing someone IMO.

As long as the kid had somewhere safe to be, like a relative/foster family then the woman should be allowed to do what she wanted

Sleepy

Mossy Monk wrote:

that's unfair. its her religious belief

And what is that belief but a rejection of common sense and logic in favour of a 'leap of faith'? Particularly when it comes to one's own life and the life of one's offspring

I have to say, I think the child would be better off a ward of the state if her decision making on this issue is representative of the woman's intellect.

Alun

L31mr0d wrote:

regardless of her religious beliefs, this issue shouldn't of even had case to be raised. There are plenty of modern methods of bloodless surgery and blood alternatives out there so as for this not to be an issue anymore.

Didn't she have a massive haemmorhage, and the attendant blood loss after giving birth? Don't see how bloodless surgery would have helped her in those circumstances ... surely she just needed blood to replace that which she had already lost?

Love2love

bluto63 wrote:

As long as the kid had somewhere safe to be, like a relative/foster family then the woman should be allowed to do what she wanted

The woman has no relatives, that is why it was ordered that for the interest of the child, she must be kept alive.
JW's are not allowed to read the bible to make their own interpretations, they must use literature from other JW's, hench 'abstaining from blood' which in our interpretation means not to kill another human. The following is a link to a site made by ex-JW and their rules that the must live by. Just incase any of you are interested.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/reasons.html

abetarrush

stepbar wrote:

Proper right, religion or no religion what kind of mother puts her religion over the welfare of her child? She is a utter fool.

thats kinda obvious



yeah, shes clearly whacked, so i dont think shes fit to raise a child

nlgbbbblth

Jehovah's Witnesses = losers ?

Discuss.

spurious

I thought I lived in a country where my consent was sought and respected for medical procedures.
Apparently not at the moment.

L31mr0d

nlgbbbblth wrote:

Jehovah's Witnesses = losers ?

Discuss.

Eh mods... hello? If I was to start a thread like "muslims = losers discuss" (not making that statement, giving an example) it would be deleted and I would be probably banned. Yet this whole thread has degraded into bashing a religion and its beliefs and drawing unfounded conclusions about it and making ridiculous assumptions that others have needed to clarify.

Its gone far enough and should be locked in fairness.

Darragh29

aidan_walsh wrote:

While in this case there is obviously greater good coming of the decision, I do think it sets an unfortunate precedent of a hospital being able to overrule a patients wishes regarding a medical procedure.

It doesn't set a precedent, the master of the hospital would have to apply to the High Court again in the morning should a similar situation present itself. Any future decisions could also be appealed to the Supreme Court, so the notion of a this being a "precedent" is nonsense. Interestingly the court ordered that the hospital had the right to restrain the patient for the purposes of forcing treatment upon her if that became necessary. Glad to see that the rights of the child in this case to have a natural mother in her life has been given priority by the High Court over the religious whims of the mother with respect to a blood transfusion.

nesf

nlgbbbblth wrote:

Jehovah's Witnesses = losers ?

Discuss.

Don't. Less of the JW bashing and more of the discussion of the case people.

It's one thing to strongly disagree with one element of a faith (like blood transfusion), it's quite a different thing to ridicule members of that religion. One is acceptable on here and the other is not.

Fraggle Rocks

spurious wrote:

I thought I lived in a country where my consent was sought and respected for medical procedures.
Apparently not at the moment.

would you look after the child if the mother had died then?

Darragh29

Fraggle Rocks wrote:

would you look after the child if the mother had died then?

Agree. There is something seriously defective with ANY religion that expects a mother, by virtue of her abiding by the rules of her faith, to basically commit suicide in the full knowledge that her new born child will be an orphan.

In circumstances such as this, where the woman needed a blood transfusion and had just delivered a baby, the fact that the religious community she belonged to did not provide an exemption for her in relation to a blood transfusion being banned by her faith, in all of the circumstances that she found herself in, is something that should be investigated by the authorities. Any religion that starts becoming involved in the right of someone to live or die, by virtue of its faith and teachings, should be monitored and regulated by the authorities. We wouldn't tolerate a religion that said that on such a date, a person must die, say for example on their 50th birthday, so we shouldn't tolerate a religion that says that if someone of their religion suffers a road traffic accident and requires blood, that they must die...

nlgbbbblth

nesf wrote:

Don't. Less of the JW bashing and more of the discussion of the case people.

It's one thing to strongly disagree with one element of a faith (like blood transfusion), it's quite a different thing to ridicule members of that religion. One is acceptable on here and the other is not.

It is merely an opinion.

That 'one element of a faith' is highly significant and the fact that somebody would want to become a member of the religion despite the presence of that highly-dangerous membership clause reflects badly on the individuals concerned.