Court decides to give Congolese woman transfusion

nesf · 24-09-2006 10:58PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Just pointing out that thousands of years ago the life expectancy of people who survived childhood, and died of natural causes (excluding famine and disasters) is about the same as today. The main cause of low life expectancy is infant mortality.

Eh... The percentage of people reaching old age was very low even in relatively recent times. The mortality rate of many common illnesses was much higher even 100 or 200 years ago, nevermind thousands of years ago.

RedPlanet · 25-09-2006 09:06AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

if you weren't able to give your consent it would be asked off a relative.

This case is slightly different, there were no relatives to contact, and another life is at stake

Would you not agree that it's better to keep someone alive if you are unsure of consent ( they can always kill themselves later if they feel deined (humour) ) than to allow others to die.

But they were not unsure of the patient's opinion. She was carrying a card that stipulated she did not want a blood transfusion which was signed by 2 witnesses , she was coherent at the time that's why the hospital sought restraint permission.
A friend heard on the radio, on a show discussing the week's news, that apparently the woman's husband was in ireland trying to get to the hospital.

From the Irish Independant:

The Jehovah's Witnesses now claim the child's father was actually in the hospital and tried to prevent the transfusion, but was refused access to the ward, as he could not be identified.

The woman is believed to have been worried about putting her husband's name down as next of kin because of questions about his legality in Ireland. He is understood to have recently arrived from the Democratic Republic of Congo. A spokesperson for the group said the young mother gave hospital staff a signed directive card that Witnesses carry to inform medical staff that their religion forbids them from having blood transfusions. The religion said it was now seeking advice to determine if the woman's constitutional rights could have been breached.
Jehovah's Witnesses may sue over blood transfusion.

RedPlanet · 25-09-2006 09:18AM

Ireland isn't the only place to force blood transfusions into unwilling patients:
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cbc/canada_home&articleID=2377027

In this case however, the patient is minor.

Love2love · 25-09-2006 09:26AM

Just heard on the radio that the JW's are planning to sue the government because the baby's father was in the hospital at the time and tried to prevent the blood transfusion.

seamus · 25-09-2006 09:42AM

Love2love wrote:

Just heard on the radio that the JW's are planning to sue the government because the baby's father was in the hospital at the time and tried to prevent the blood transfusion.

If the above article was true, then the "husband" was never marked down as her husband when they arrived here, and was not allowed near the woman because his claims couldn't be verified. If this is true, then they were perfectly right to proceed.

jman0 · 25-09-2006 10:43AM

seamus wrote:

If the above article was true, then the "husband" was never marked down as her husband when they arrived here, and was not allowed near the woman because his claims couldn't be verified. If this is true, then they were perfectly right to proceed.

Yeah, i think the hospital can only presume there is no next of kin since that's what she wrote down.
However, they could have easily said to her "sorry to disturb you miss but there is a fella outside claiming to be your husband, is he or should we ring the gards on him?"

That would be preferrable to forcing a blood transfusion on her huh?

seamus · 25-09-2006 12:00PM

jman0 wrote:

Yeah, i think the hospital can only presume there is no next of kin since that's what she wrote down.
However, they could have easily said to her "sorry to disturb you miss but there is a fella outside claiming to be your husband, is he or should we ring the gards on him?"

That would be preferrable to forcing a blood transfusion on her huh?

Not necessarily. If she knew what was going down she could have said, "He's totally my husband, bring him in! Great!". For all we know (even at this stage), the guy may not be her husband at all.

jman0 · 25-09-2006 12:17PM

seamus wrote:

Not necessarily. If she knew what was going down she could have said, "He's totally my husband, bring him in! Great!". For all we know (even at this stage), the guy may not be her husband at all.

No harm asking.
What, rather than asking you'd prefer to get out the restraining straps and force an unwanted procedure on her?

seamus · 25-09-2006 12:44PM

My point is that she could/would go "Yep, that man's my husband, give him my child, and don't give me any blood". Then after she's dead, the guy can turn around and say "Well actually I'm not her husband, I'm just another Jehovah's witness and I wanted to protect her right to not take any blood". Even at this stage, some guy walking up and saying "But I'm her husband!" is no real use. They didn't declare their marraige, so the state has no further responsibility to find out if they are married.

abetarrush · 25-09-2006 05:12PM

This is exactly why I'm not religious

It conflicts with natural things

Most parent's have an instinctive thing to make them do everything they can to be a good parent, by lookin after the child, and themselves

Also, wanting to have sex is a natural thing. Guy and a gal see eachother, hormones go off here and there
its natural

But some people think this natural thing is wrong just because a book written by people who have been dead for like 3000 years says so..........?

As for the OP. This is a hard thing to decide. A kid's better off with its mothers, yet the mother had no problem leavin the child with no Ma

crybaby · 25-09-2006 05:46PM

judge made the right decision, there is no way a judge can ever take the side of superstition over flesh and blood

Darragh29 · 25-09-2006 06:00PM

crybaby wrote:

judge made the right decision, there is no way a judge can ever take the side of superstition over flesh and blood

While he was at it, he should have slapped an injunction on the JW preventing them from encouraging people to refuse medical treatment in the future if that treatment would save a life in a situation such as this. What kind of religion expects a mother to leave their child an orphan for the purposes of keeping their faith??? Am I the only person who thinks this is a fu*king crazy situation???

0utshined · 27-09-2006 11:27PM

No you are not. People believe the craziest things.

OliviaM · 28-09-2006 05:11AM

i've always had respect for people's belief and their right to religion. but this case is too complicated coz there is a baby involved. in which case the woman's freedom of religion will be set aside to give importance to the right of the baby to live..that's my opinion.

ArthurDent · 28-09-2006 10:22AM

OliviaM wrote:

i've always had respect for people's belief and their right to religion. but this case is too complicated coz there is a baby involved. in which case the woman's freedom of religion will be set aside to give importance to the right of the baby to live..that's my opinion.

But the baby's right to life wasn't affected, the baby had been delivered safe and well.
Personally I think the refusal of blood transfusions is way out there on the daft religious belief side, but ya know what there's loads more beliefs that are equally as wacky imo that impact on a person's health :forbidding the use of condoms to prevent aids (roman catholic), male circumscision (jewish, islam), not allowing birth control (except "rythmn method") even if another birth would be fatal (rc again), not allowing porcine derived insulin (jewish, islam), euthanasia (most major religions) - so where do you draw the line?
Most religions imo are not logical, they require their followers to accept things that may be counter logical - mature adults (of sound mind) should be free to do this. Children, of course are a different matter - if there is a life or death issue with a decision impacted by their parent's religious view - the courts have ever right to decide what is in the best interest of the child imo.

DilbertPartII · 28-09-2006 12:51PM

ArthurDent wrote:

But the baby's right to life wasn't affected, the baby had been delivered safe and well.
Personally I think the refusal of blood transfusions is way out there on the daft religious belief side, but ya know what there's loads more beliefs that are equally as wacky imo that impact on a person's health :forbidding the use of condoms to prevent aids (roman catholic), male circumscision (jewish, islam), not allowing birth control (except "rythmn method") even if another birth would be fatal (rc again), not allowing porcine derived insulin (jewish, islam), euthanasia (most major religions) - so where do you draw the line?
Most religions imo are not logical, they require their followers to accept things that may be counter logical - mature adults (of sound mind) should be free to do this. Children, of course are a different matter - if there is a life or death issue with a decision impacted by their parent's religious view - the courts have ever right to decide what is in the best interest of the child imo.

the baby's delivered safe and well, yes! but what kind of life could that baby have if the mother's dead? remember there's no such care as that of the mother so the court's ruling was a way to give the baby a better life.

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 28-09-2006 01:22PM

It was a very strong ruling from the courts. Could it apply to force someone on a hunger strike to be force-fed in the future?

It's not as bad as the story about that family from Wicklow a few years back who wanted to let their young child die because they had raised her as a JW.

Didn't think that JW was a religion practised in African countries, but obviously wrong there. Is it a widespread religion?

Court decides to give Congolese woman transfusion

Comments