Blood transfusion like being "raped!"
Ireland - A female Jehovah’s Witness described a blood transfusion administered to her at a hospital against her wishes as being “like a rape”.
Dr Chris Fitzpatrick said the woman had given an “inaccurate representation'’ of what had happened to her after she experienced massive blood loss following the birth of her baby boy at the Coombe Women’s hospital on September 21, 2006.
He was told the woman wanted to fight the medical staff off before the transfusion was given but was unable to, that she was held and sedated before the transfusion was administered, and had described the experience as like a rape.
Dr Fitzpatrick said he “found it difficult to reconcile” what had happened with that account of events. Staff at the hospital were “at pains'’ to support the woman during what was a difficult time for everybody concerned, he said.
He was giving evidence in the continuing action by the hospital against the woman in which the hospital contends it was entitled to seek an injunction in September 2006 to give the woman a transfusion.
(The Jehovah’s Witnesses organization prohibits the use of blood transfusions. Individual Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to die or let their children die, rather than break this command, even though the Scriptures nowhere teach that blood transfusions are wrong.)
The hospital secured the order after it told the court it believed the woman would die without a transfusion as she had lost some 80%c of her blood and that the woman had refused the transfusion in light of her religious beliefs.
In the proceedings before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, the hospital claims a general duty to protect and safeguard the woman’s right to life and that it would be contrary to public order and morality if Ms K could be permitted to place her life in immediate danger by declining routine medical treatment.
Ms K denies the claims. In a counter-claim, she contends the administration of the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse such medical treatment.
Ms K also claims that the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person.
The case continues.
I would like to close this piece with my own thoughts on this issue! I totally agree with Ms. K that she should have been allowed to die! We need to "thin the herd" of all these religious nuts and if she wants to kill herself, who are we to stop her! This is as good a place to start as any!
Your "off with their heads" scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Dr Chris Fitzpatrick said the woman had given an “inaccurate representation'’ of what had happened to her after she experienced massive blood loss following the birth of her baby boy at the Coombe Women’s hospital on September 21, 2006.He was told the woman wanted to fight the medical staff off before the transfusion was given but was unable to, that she was held and sedated before the transfusion was administered, and had described the experience as like a rape.
Dr Fitzpatrick said he “found it difficult to reconcile” what had happened with that account of events. Staff at the hospital were “at pains'’ to support the woman during what was a difficult time for everybody concerned, he said.
He was giving evidence in the continuing action by the hospital against the woman in which the hospital contends it was entitled to seek an injunction in September 2006 to give the woman a transfusion.
(The Jehovah’s Witnesses organization prohibits the use of blood transfusions. Individual Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to die or let their children die, rather than break this command, even though the Scriptures nowhere teach that blood transfusions are wrong.)
The hospital secured the order after it told the court it believed the woman would die without a transfusion as she had lost some 80%c of her blood and that the woman had refused the transfusion in light of her religious beliefs.
In the proceedings before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, the hospital claims a general duty to protect and safeguard the woman’s right to life and that it would be contrary to public order and morality if Ms K could be permitted to place her life in immediate danger by declining routine medical treatment.
Ms K denies the claims. In a counter-claim, she contends the administration of the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse such medical treatment.
Ms K also claims that the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person.
The case continues.
I would like to close this piece with my own thoughts on this issue! I totally agree with Ms. K that she should have been allowed to die! We need to "thin the herd" of all these religious nuts and if she wants to kill herself, who are we to stop her! This is as good a place to start as any!
Your "off with their heads" scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Labels: blood transfusion, jehova's witness, religious nuts
posted by Allan W Janssen | 2:41 p.m.
1 Comments:
"the hospital claims a general duty to protect and safeguard the woman’s right to life and that it would be contrary to public order and morality if Ms K could be permitted to place her life in immediate danger by declining routine medical treatment."
This is ridiculous. What about that player for the Buffalo Bills who was paralized a few weeks back? Why isn't football outlawed? Is not risking life and limb for such a frivolous reason equally "contrary to public order and morality?"
Jehovah's Witnesses decline blood transfusions for religious reasons, based on scripture. They have no objection to blood substitutes or non-blood medicine, whcih generally is as effective and always safer, as it eliminates risk from tissue rejection, blood-borne disease, and human error.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home