Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

JW mother refuses blood transfusion and dies leaving newborn twins

432 replies

WendyWeber · 05/11/2007 08:59

report

"We can't believe she died after childbirth in this day and age, with all the technology there is."

They all share the responsibility for her death - her family, his family, the church, all of them. Can they really believe they all did the right thing?

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 05/11/2007 22:12

'A jw refusing blood when otherwise she is fit and healthy and has a responsiblity to her newborn lo`s, is not acceptable.'

According to you and your value judgements, haychee. Those were not hers.

Why are yours more right?

According to your values, the other scenarios are permissible, but you see, we all work to different paradigms, so there must be acceptance of that in healthcare.

expatinscotland · 05/11/2007 22:13

don't listen to them, lissie.

one has a history of nasty, horrid, judgemental posts.

wrinklytum · 05/11/2007 22:13

It is extremely difficult,but what gives any one of us the right to determine another persons' future?

I did struggle with nursing people who made this decision but ultimately it is their decision.I may have felt this was wrong,but it would be unethical and illegal to transfuse a sane person against their wishes.If you have a JW patient they have to sign reams of documentation an wear a "No blood products" wristband and so on.There are also specific policies regarding JW patients.They can also decide to accept treatment at any time.It is a sad and difficult one.

olala · 05/11/2007 22:14

actually ok, maybe if she is the kind of person who takes decisions like this, it is right that her dcs grow up without her.

Is that a better view?!

I cannot stomach this 'i can do anything i want on ground of religion' bullshit. if it was only her, i'd say go for it, stick a needle in your eye if god says so, but when there are dcs involved, your rights come second, that is the deal with children, you subordinate your rights and your needs to theirs. if you cannot see that it is more important that your dcs have an alive mum who is a sinner than a dead one who is not, then really....i just dont know what to say. well i do, but its really disrespectful to a recently dead, if completely idiotic, person.

LadyVictoriaOfCake · 05/11/2007 22:15

you cannot force someone to take meidcal intervention.

this young girl made a choice based on her own faith. the doctors respected that. her family over ruled it but it was too late.

lissietothosefireworks · 05/11/2007 22:15

sorry, just bumped my other thread on this. i suggest that they take a look.

emma would have been a wonderful mother, she was naive. and believed (as we all do) that childbirth would be a wonderful, natural experience. have some respect!

LadyVictoriaOfCake · 05/11/2007 22:16

olala you are really nasty.

olala · 05/11/2007 22:16

lissie..how dare I?

what do you mean how dare I?

what is wrong with thinking that a mother with a chance to stay alive to love her children should take that chance?

olala · 05/11/2007 22:18

ok.

Maybe I am really nasty.

This kind of issue strikes a particularly personal chord with me. very close to home. I'm sorry. Very very close to home. I'll leave it. But i cannot cannot cannot understand this, though I have often often struggled to.

It is because i think this woman was to be a wonderful mother that i find it so distressing.

lissietothosefireworks · 05/11/2007 22:18

Read - The - Whole - Thread!

i dont care how many posts are on here, if you are going to make those judgements, at least be informed.

expatinscotland · 05/11/2007 22:19

'well i do, but its really disrespectful to a recently dead, if completely idiotic, person. '

that sentence is so far beyond disrespectful it's really shocking.

!

haychee · 05/11/2007 22:19

Sorry, i didnt read anywhere that they agreed to a transfusion but it was too late am at this. I thought that was the whole issue, they refused so she died leaving behind 2los and the dh.

I fully appreciate their needs to be acceptance within healthcare of differing cultures and religions and this was catered for i beleieve in this case.

But im not casting any opinion on any healthcare basis. This is a moral issue and i, nor do alot of others here think that their decision was a sound one.

I agree, that adults are able to make their own decisions and can make commitments to religion. But this woman has decided the future of her los to be declined the chance to know and love thier mother, and to be brought up within their mothers loving arms. That is the part im struggling with, not the decision itself but the consequences of that on her motherless los.

olala · 05/11/2007 22:19

i am not going to read the whole thread. I am going to say that if you have 2 dcs and the chance at life saving treatment which you turn down then that is awful. truly tragic and awful.

have i got the facts wrongf?

olala · 05/11/2007 22:21

sorry, my religion says i can say things like that.

expatinscotland · 05/11/2007 22:22

'i am not going to read the whole thread. I am going to say that if you have 2 dcs and the chance at life saving treatment which you turn down then that is awful. truly tragic and awful.'

but you didn't just say that! you said she was a shit mother, an idiot and that the state should force undesired medical interventions on sane, rational people because they (the state) somehow know what is best for everyone.

as for disrespect, there's a member here who knew hte person personally, if you could be bothered to read the thread before shooting off.

lissietothosefireworks · 05/11/2007 22:24

They didnt turn it down. emma signed a form because of her beliefs. she thought (as we all do in our 1st pg) that she would be fine, nothing would go wrong. it was a part of her birth plan, like refusing an epidural. her condition deteriorated very quickly and her family over-ruled her wishes after much debate (like my dh worrying about whether i would want a cs, when i clearly stated that i didnt) unfortunately it was too late. she did NOT willfully leave her babies, she was NOT selfish, she was naive.

olala · 05/11/2007 22:25

the state should force undesired medical interventions on sane, rational people because they (the state) somehow know what is best for everyone.

  • i didn;t say that!

And i did say she was a shite mother. What mother leaves their child becasue of their religion? a not very good one.

You didn't answer my q - if I walked out the door now, on the basis that my religion told me i needed to be alone, not with dcs, for the rest of my life, and i just walked off, and i left them, with dh to explain, would that be ok?

would you rush to my defence as I was of sound mind, rational, and a grown up?

I hope not.

StressTeddy · 05/11/2007 22:26

olala - please, please stop

LadyVictoriaOfCake · 05/11/2007 22:26

she didnt walk out on her babies. she died. its hardly the same is it?

lissietothosefireworks · 05/11/2007 22:26

fuck off.

wrinklytum · 05/11/2007 22:26

Lissie for your friend and her family.

Olala,please show a little tolerance and respect.

wannaBe · 05/11/2007 22:27

It is too late for this woman. Casting judgements on her will not bring her back. However

I do think that serious questions should be asked as to how people can be so brainwashed by a religion that they will choose to make their children motherless purely for the sake of their beliefs. And yes, IMO it is brainwashing, because there is absolutely no merit in refusing blood transfusion.

It is not the individuals that should be judged, but the religion as a whole.

We judge certain religions on the basis that they advocate honour killings, and suicide bombings. This is no different, and I do not think it is wrong to seriously criticize the religion that allows innocent children to grow up without a mother.

Will these children be brought up to sacrifice themselves in the name of jahova too if the need should arise? Or will their father see sense and leave the truth?

AitchTwoOh · 05/11/2007 22:28

she had faith, olala, that God would do the right thing by her and her family. whatever that is. it's an awful situation, terrible. Lissie, don't listen to these people, they're small.

olala · 05/11/2007 22:28

ok.

I am going to hold my hands up here 100%.

She didn;'t do what I thought she did.

I apologise unreservedly.

I thought she had been awake, conscious and given the chance to have a transfusion, knwoing it would save her life, but had decided not to have one on grounds of religion.

I am sorry, so very very very sorry. I cannot say how sorry I am. This is different to the situation I was comparing it to in my mind, where there was a much more concsious choice involved.

I am so sorry, I jumped right in, so sure of myself becuase of my own personal experience that I felt no need to evem check the full facts. I, unreservedly and sincerely, apologise. I did not realise that she had made the choice before it mattered, and by the time it mattered she was no longer in a position to voice her views.

I a mso so sorry.

LadyVictoriaOfCake · 05/11/2007 22:30

lissie i think i need to leave this thread, as its almost making me cry with anger. please dontm read anymorelissie, you dont need this.

Swipe left for the next trending thread