Jehovah's Witness and Blood Transfusion

DonJose

Not many news stories piss me off as much as what I read today. A woman from the Congo was in the Coombe having a baby, she loses 80% of her blood, Doctors feel the only way to save her life is via blood transfusion, woman says she is a Jehovah and doesn't want a blood transfusion. Doctors end up going to court to save this womans life. Now she'll probably sue them. Makes your blood boil.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-doctor-dismisses-claim-blood-transfusion-like-rape-1116128.html

Karl Hungus

There's some people who really need a smack upside the head and be told to cop on.

Jesus Wept

Should of let her die, stupid fúcker.

Senna

She should be told that if she wins the case, the 80% of her blood will be removed as per her wishes. See how quick she is to fight it them.

indough

They should have saved the blood for a more gracious patient. I find it kind of disrespectful to people who may have suffered the ordeal of rape too. She sounds like a b1tch of the highest order to be honest, but I suppose doctors should honour patients religious beliefs if they're that strong.

Karl Hungus

The-Rigger wrote:

Should of let her die, stupid fúcker.

It's have! HAVE!!! 'Of' does not equal have!!!

Grr... Hungus smash! :mad:

Jesus Wept

Karl Hungus wrote:

It's have! HAVE!!! 'Of' does not equal have!!!

Grr... Hungus smash! :mad:

Linkie

This is INCORRECT.
It should be would have:
* "I never would have/would’ve thought that he’d behave like that."
This is CORRECT.
It’s the same for should and could:
"He should of come with me."
This is INCORRECT.
* "He should have/should’ve come with me."
This is CORRECT.
"She could of had anything she wanted."
This is INCORRECT.
* "She could have had anything she wanted."
This is CORRECT.

---

Still no clearer, can you explain the reasons/rules behind this?
Cause all it does is give a few examples.

Will you enlighten me?


I'm off to bed.



Hope my grammer be correct in dis postage!

Karoma

Reason? It's because it's right. It's that simple. "should of", etc. are mistakes (Probably due to mishearing). Now, everyone, can we get back on-topic?

Zillah

Senna wrote:

She should be told that if she wins the case, the 80% of her blood will be removed as per her wishes. See how quick she is to fight it them.

More reasons religion is stupid. Legally I think she's right though. If she's retarded enough to refuse blood because of an ambiguous passage in the Bible then she has that right. Its stupid, but her choice none the less.

mikemac

She lost 80% of her blood and survived?:eek:
Kudos to the Irish medical service and staff if they can save somones life in a situation like that. They rightly get crititized on boards sometimes but they did impressive work here.

lol at Senna's post. Interesting and fair at the same time

curiousxxx1

This same topic is in Religion-Christainity.... And boy are there a lot of beliefs!!!!
Coombe should counter sue her for that stupid act...Like she's not happy she had a child and can raise the child up... ffs if she doesn't want to be in a situation like that she should have opted for home birth.. she could have died then-foolish woman!
I thought she couldn't speak English? How does she know what her rights are?

mikemac

curiousxxx1 wrote:

I thought she couldn't speak English? How does she know what her rights are?

Without knowing the case, I'd imagine her legal team could be doing it for free, like the deportation of Great a few months back.
All good for raising the public profile of the lawyer

spadder

She’s an idiot, why did she got to hospital in the first place?

Why did she not ask her god to intervene? he could have sent a spaceship ambulance with alien blood or whatever the gobsh!te believes would have fixed her.

SimpleSam06

curiousxxx1 wrote:

Like she's not happy she had a child and can raise the child up...

Thats a good point, I think social services should be looking closely at the ability of this woman to raise a child, as she will almost certainly refuse that child medical assistance when they need it. It would be enough for me to declare a parent unfit!

On another note, anyone who loses 80% of their blood is, if not dead, irrevocably brain damaged. Shome mishtake shurely. Or given what she is doing now, maybe not.

Edit: Also, aren't there laws to prevent spurious wasting of the courts time with frivolous lawsuits? Some of these people are a bit too slap-happy, if you know what I mean. I wager she isn't paying the solicitors out of her own pocket, either.

Mossy Monk

So Jehovahs Witnesses shouldn't be allowed to raise children?

Pepe LeFrits

Mossy Monk wrote:

So Jehovahs Witnesses shouldn't be allowed to raise children?

Sounds good to me!

TwoShedsJackson

Religious beliefs eh?? Retarded as usual.

SimpleSam06

Mossy Monk wrote:

So Jehovahs Witnesses shouldn't be allowed to raise children?

Thats about the size of it. Actually I almost wish more cults and religions refused medical attention for their children, sounds like a splendid excuse to remove the lot of em.

mikemac

The problem with this religion is they are taking one obscure passage from the Bible and putting it before someone's life.

There are any many other obscure quotes like adulters and people who work on the Sabbath should be killed. So who chooses which enforce and which we don't

President Bartlett explains it better than me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Mr. Presentable

If she didn't want medical intervention, what was she doing at a hospital?

tallus

I agree with what someone posted earlier, if she wins her case, take the blood back. Stupid fu*king bint shouldn't have been let in to the hospital in the first place with a stupid attitude like that. Home birth ftw.

Anto McC

Even when the health service does something good, they've f*cked up. I'd have let her die but i'd have f*cked her outside the hospital to do it because she'd have been taking up a bed that could be used by someone who actually wants medical attention.

Jesus Wept

Karoma wrote:

Reason? It's because it's right. It's that simple. "should of", etc. are mistakes (Probably due to mishearing). Now, everyone, can we get back on-topic?

I should've guessed.

kelle

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Edit: Also, aren't there laws to prevent spurious wasting of the courts time with frivolous lawsuits? Some of these people are a bit too slap-happy, if you know what I mean. I wager she isn't paying the solicitors out of her own pocket, either.

We are, out of our own taxes along with the doctors who saved her.:mad:

curiousxxx1

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Thats a good point, I think social services should be looking closely at the ability of this woman to raise a child, as she will almost certainly refuse that child medical assistance when they need it. It would be enough for me to declare a parent unfit!.

Very valid point? If her child was in an accident what would she do?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Edit: Also, aren't there laws to prevent spurious wasting of the courts time with frivolous lawsuits? Some of these people are a bit too slap-happy, if you know what I mean. I wager she isn't paying the solicitors out of her own pocket, either.

She doesn't even speak english.... So she must have a middle man acting on her request... TAX PAYERS MONEY!!!!!! FFS

kelle

If she had died, would her husband or family be suing the hospital?

kittenkiller

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.

digitally-yours

Thats crazy

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

She is off course one of a kind

kelle

kittenkiller wrote:

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.

Maybe it's a coincidence that compensation payouts are high in this country. Would she bother her ar*e suing if this happened in the Congo?

Guy:Incognito

Mossy Monk wrote:

So Jehovahs Witnesses shouldn't be allowed to raise children?

Nobody with stupid religious beliefs (ie, all religious beliefs) should be allowed have children.

kittenkiller

kelle wrote:

Maybe it's a coincidence that compensation payouts are high in this country. Would she bother her ar*e suing if this happened in the Congo?

She probably would've been *actually* raped and left for dead in the Congo!

eth0_

"Ms. K"?
SO SHE WASN'T EVEN MARRIED?
What a dirty whore! An affront to her religion!!!!!!!11

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

K-9

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.

I think she changed from Catholic to Jehovah during the pregnancy. When it came out at the last minute, the Hospital got a court order to proceed.

dame

Brainwashing cults. Putting people's lives in jeopardy because they insist people follow their way or get pushed out. Whoever is in charge of those crowd should really do some soul searching and imagine if it was one of their own family who was about to die/be saved by a blood transfusion. See if the took such a rigid stance on the issue then.

leninbenjamin

Jehova's Witnesses - successfully making people laugh since 1876

slade_x

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

leninbenjamin

slade_x wrote:

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

in fairness though the religious make loads of comments bashing the non religious all the time without anyone kicking up a fuss.... why can't we who aren't religious do the same?

Fanny Cradock

curiousxxx1 wrote:

She doesn't even speak english.... So she must have a middle man acting on her request... TAX PAYERS MONEY!!!!!! FFS

Why I never! Availing of legal aid. OUTRAGEOUS :mad: :mad: :mad:

That aside, I can't see her garnering any public support for this.

Crucifix

Seanies32 wrote:

I think she changed from Catholic to Jehovah during the pregnancy. When it came out at the last minute, the Hospital got a court order to proceed.

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

aidan24326

Senna's suggestion is the best I've heard yet, rather than giving her compensation, offer to take the blood back. After all she has been 'raped' by this transfusion of blood so the least we could do is remove the dirty stuff from her body.

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. This blood transfusion issue with jehova's witnesses comes up time and again and a definite legal ruling should be made on it for once and for all. Doctors are put in an impossible situation.

When she loses this case (as I really hope she will) I'd put her on the first plane back to where she came from.

slade_x wrote:

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

No they absolutely are not. This only highlights the utter stupidity of some religious beliefs and in this case puts doctors in a horrible no-win situation, where they actually get sued for doing their job and apparently doing it very well for this woman since she's still alive.

That said, everyone's life is their own and if a jehovah's witness wants to let themself die over some idiotic piece of religious dogma then be my guest. Let them die. They should never have the right to let their child die though, should be state legal protection for children in these situations.

Mossy Monk

aidan24326 wrote:

This only highlights the utter stupidity of some religious beliefs

No more stupid than a man coming back from the dead and being raised into heaven.

eroo

its fcukin ridiculous,they saved her life and for that shes suing them!!!!!!
>:(

jellie

dame wrote:

Putting people's lives in jeopardy because they insist people follow their way or get pushed out. Whoever is in charge of those crowd should really do some soul searching and imagine if it was one of their own family who was about to die/be saved by a blood transfusion. See if the took such a rigid stance on the issue then.

My bfs family are jehovahs witnesses & while he doesnt practice anymore he still thinks in their terms in relation to some things, including blood transfusions. We've had plenty of 'heated discussions' over this, particularly because he said to me if hes ever in an accident to make sure its known he doesnt want blood transfusions. In some ways I can see fair enough its his own choice, but would he rather DIE than take blood. & what about the people that get left behind. would his mother really rather see him die than accept a blood transfusion..? When i asked for the exact reason behind it, he gave me something about something said in the bible. I cant even remember it now. But i remember thinking that it wasnt a big enough reason to not give/take blood.

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?

besty

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Thats a good point, I think social services should be looking closely at the ability of this woman to raise a child, as she will almost certainly refuse that child medical assistance when they need it. It would be enough for me to declare a parent unfit!

The court reads into Art.41/42 of the constitution in such a circumstance. If the child's life is under threat, the court will intervene to order the life saving treatment. These exact facts were at the fore in the "Baby Janice" case some years ago.

curiousxxx1

Sorry Sara84, i am not picking on your bf but his belief and others who are in feel the same is UTTER RUBBISH
I was sick 3 years ago and i needed blood transfusion, whoever’s blood that i used i thank them greatly..
People die and they refuse to donate their organs... These organs would decay and be of no use, why not give it to someone who has the will to live... It puzzles me, everyday people die and they/family refuse to give their organs and it's unfair... You would need to be in a situation for you to actually understand what i am saying.
And as for JH and all other beliefs... when it comes to life or death would you die for what you believe in knowing that there are medical treatments that can save you?

Pepe LeFrits

eroo wrote:

its fcukin ridiculous,they saved her life and for that shes suing them!!!!!!
>:(

Holy ****, really?

jellie

curiousxxx1 wrote:

Sorry Sara84, i am not picking on your bf but his belief and others who are in feel the same is UTTER RUBBISH
I was sick 3 years ago and i needed blood transfusion, whoever’s blood that i used i thank them greatly..
People die and they refuse to donate their organs... These organs would decay and be of no use, why not give it to someone who has the will to live... It puzzles me, everyday people die and they/family refuse to give their organs and it's unfair... You would need to be in a situation for you to actually understand what i am saying.
And as for JH and all other beliefs... when it comes to life or death would you die for what you believe in knowing that there are medical treatments that can save you?

I disagree with him anyway. I give blood. It came up with his younger bro/sisters recently & they asked me had i given blood & i could see the shock on their faces when I said yes (theyre ages 9-12, not really at a point where theyd question their religion so probably thought i was going straight to hell).

slade_x

leninbenjamin wrote:

in fairness though the religious make loads of comments bashing the non religious all the time without anyone kicking up a fuss.... why can't we who aren't religious do the same?

Any irrational comments like that are aimed to try and defend their religious beliefs.

What do the non-religious have to defend, Common sense, a rational/ logical progression of thinking.

I cant say all but some religious people i have met seem petty in their defense of their beliefs by bashing others.

Most non-religious people i know just dont care enough about the subject to stoop to such a petty level

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

aidan24326 wrote:

No they absolutely are not. This only highlights the utter stupidity of some religious beliefs

So you dont think a comment like:

Actually I almost wish more cults and religions refused medical attention for their children, sounds like a splendid excuse to remove the lot of em.

Is a bit over the top

Condemning children for the belief's of their parents. I was born and baptised a Catholic. i am in no way a catholic anymore and have no affiliation with anyother religion, and wouldnt want any

Its probably fair to say a good majority of athiests are actually born into religion. Its probably why their athiests, for some it just makes total sense when they're surrounded by seriously dilusional individuals

However I dont refer to myself as athiest, i just dont care enough about such labels. I'm me, and thats all you need to know

aidan24326

Mossy Monk wrote:

No more stupid than a man coming back from the dead and being raised into heaven.

True, but in this case the belief (that blood transfusions are not allowed) is something that will lead to your death if followed through in an emergency medical situation, so it's a bit different.

sar84 wrote:

My bfs family are jehovahs witnesses & while he doesnt practice anymore he still thinks in their terms in relation to some things, including blood transfusions. We've had plenty of 'heated discussions' over this, particularly because he said to me if hes ever in an accident to make sure its known he doesnt want blood transfusions. In some ways I can see fair enough its his own choice, but would he rather DIE than take blood. & what about the people that get left behind. would his mother really rather see him die than accept a blood transfusion..? When i asked for the exact reason behind it, he gave me something about something said in the bible. I cant even remember it now. But i remember thinking that it wasnt a big enough reason to not give/take blood.

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.

EDIT: slade_x I would certainly never condemn children for the beliefs of their parents no, and the comment you referred to above is a bit OTT yes.

thefinalstage

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