Jehovah's Witness and Blood Transfusion

DonJose · 06-10-2007 03:44AM #1

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 · 06-10-2007 03:48AM

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

Jesus Wept · 06-10-2007 04:06AM

Should of let her die, stupid fúcker.

Senna · 06-10-2007 04:18AM

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 · 06-10-2007 04:26AM

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 · 06-10-2007 04:26AM

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 · 06-10-2007 04:38AM

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 · 06-10-2007 04:48AM

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 · 06-10-2007 07:27AM

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 · 06-10-2007 07:54AM

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 · 06-10-2007 07:54AM

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 · 06-10-2007 08:00AM

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 · 06-10-2007 08:15AM

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 · 06-10-2007 08:17AM

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 · 06-10-2007 09:50AM

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

Pepe LeFrits · 06-10-2007 10:10AM

Mossy Monk wrote:

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

Sounds good to me!

TwoShedsJackson · 06-10-2007 10:12AM

Religious beliefs eh?? Retarded as usual.

SimpleSam06 · 06-10-2007 10:22AM

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 · 06-10-2007 10:26AM

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 · 06-10-2007 10:32AM

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

tallus · 06-10-2007 10:42AM

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 · 06-10-2007 10:52AM

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 · 06-10-2007 10:58AM

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 · 06-10-2007 10:58AM

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 · 06-10-2007 11:04AM

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 · 06-10-2007 12:32PM

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

kittenkiller · 06-10-2007 12:34PM

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 · 06-10-2007 12:37PM

Thats crazy

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

She is off course one of a kind

kelle · 06-10-2007 12:49PM

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 · 06-10-2007 12:54PM

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 · 06-10-2007 01:17PM

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!

Jehovah's Witness and Blood Transfusion

Comments