JW mother refuses blood transfusion and dies leaving newborn twins

[WendyWeber]

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?

oops sorry posted twice

This is indeed a tragedy. I fully take on board what has been said about it being the young woman's decision. But if the result of taking the opposite decision would have meant a penalty of ostracism by her family and community, how much was that decision was really of her own freewill?

It's similar to suttee, where widows throw themselves on their husband's funeral pyre. The choice is between that or living as an unwanted memnber of the husband's family.

Having looked at the link, are JW's vegetarian or is it just human blood they shun?

Jenk, I'm a bit confused about how that person could have successfully sued the hospital if there was nothing that could have been done to repair the injury? Surely that must happen all the time, and it's not the surgeons' fault.

Sorry, but I just have to say that even with the most carefully conducted delivery, when massive haemorrhage occurs it is sometimes impossible to save the patient's life.

Yes it is extremely rare but it can happen even with all of the technology of today and the availability of blood products.

Speed is of the essence in treating massive PPH and any delay in treament increases the risk that it cannot be 'overturned'

For a patient who refuses to have blood transfusion/products then it is an even greater risk when they suffer massive haemorrhage,.

As for informed consent regarding the decision to refuse the treatment, the Jehovas witness comes with their decision to refuse already made.

I agree the loss of life is a great tragedy and sadly the family will live with that delayed decision and it's consequences.

Message withdrawn

'Why even let people have the choice?'
Because choice is essential! I'm having a homebirth I hope against medical advice- because the medical advice here is vastly different to that back home, whch was that it was completely safe for me. And what about say, screening for Downs? Or Amnio>? Allt jhngs I ahev refused at pints becasue it is my choice. Choice is one of the safeguards we have against military rule, against terrorism, against fear and violence, against bigotry. It is perhaps a big part of what defines us as humans.

But Suedonim - suttee / sati has always been voluntary, has been banned / outlawed for years and now extremely rare in India, was more of a cultural custom than a religious obligation...and I wasn't aware that there was social pressure to do it...and it would be unlikely that an Indian woman would be badly treated by her sons and daughters-in-law!

Gosh, I have just had two JV's round this morning. I wish I had seen this thread. They might have got a discussion instead of me saying no thanks and sending them on their way. I really don't understand how they can believe that their God would want this.

I do wonder though, if the lady's faith was that strong could she have lived with the thought that she had had a transfusion? Just because a majority of us don't understand their choices it doesn't mean that they could have lived easily with the choices we would have made. So sad for them all.

sati is extremely linked to social pressure- indeed in the last recorded case the young woman who died was effectively forced into it by her MIL (I have the case somewhere on file), that was IIRC early 90's? But it is assumed that it stikll tkaes palce, if very rarely,, in the remotest parts of India- at least that is the Scholarly assumption. It's supposed to be practised as a form of redemption for the Husband, but in reality it is assumed it was tor educe the socetal burden of the financial responsibility for a wife from the village.

Peachy - but isn't the point that the practise has almost died out, things having moved with the times?

I can compeletely understand extreme poverty making it hard for subsistence comunities to separate the needs of the community as a whole from the needs of an individual who is unable to support themselves...but religious practices often have a basis in cultural custom - and means of survival - the challenge is to see things in a different light once they have become inextricably wound up with religion, and once the circumstances which guided the original practice are no longer relevant. (the fundementalis v progressive approach - and not just to religion).

Sati was amde illegal by the Raj wasn't it? Just nigh on impossible to apply, of course.

yes the point is that it has died out, or so we hope. But its a fir aprallel of how these thinsg can develop, and one which merits note.

Hinduism within India has changed dramatically now anyway- you have 2 emergent forms, the village traditions which are very much Goddess traditon (have you read about Santosi Ma? very interesting!- Goddess made up for a film who is now worshipped as a popular deity)and the Brahmanical tradition which seems popular in more urban areas, and actually seems to conform to the Mahabarata etc. Indeed, some people now think Hinduism shoudl be taught as Brahmanical tradition adn village Owrship and the Himnduism cover all dopped.

Way off the point though. Sorry!

Blu, there seems to have been a lot of social pressure behind sati. I have read several times about the way widows are treated in India, where they are 'marginalised and disadvantaged' according to this

But if sati is a voluntary process, why should it not be allowed?

Peachy, I meant medical treatment in life and death situations.

Oh I know, i'm in my pedantic head today. I posted about 4 times on another thread just to clarify a spelling lol!

Actually, apart form the practical problems with imposing the law in a case of voluntary self-imposed death of any kind, yes, i think people should be able to do what they will with thier lives....but the report about 40 million widows kind of belies any comon practice of sati....there are 40 million who haven't done it / been made to do it, for a start.

And i think social marginalisation of unproductive old people is neither a Hindu charactersitic, nor Indian or Asian....a quick galnce at the effect of threadbare pensions, long old-age and expensive care homes create a climate in this country - with our traditional lack of respect for old people and wisdom (knowledge now being available at the click of a mouse and not residing in the experience of the old, perhap) a long way from that enjoyed by many an elder in an Indian family.

Anyway - I really do think that all this is about economics and survival, custom and modernity (or lack of access to...) rather than the adherence to faith in the OP.

sorry didnt make myself clearer, the hospital trust argued that had she had a blood transfusion her life could have been saved, however mistakes were made, she went into labour, got into difficulties and had to have an emergency section, straightaway for emergency policies should have kicked in-they didnt,the hospital should have had the equipment etc there as agreed and it wasnt, then she started to hemorrage, so they gave her an emergency hysterectomy again had the drugs/machine been there it could have been different, as the salvage maching would have pumped her blood round and given the surgeon extra time to carry out the operation the surgeon who carried out the hysterectomy was one who was not familiar with JW, they should have asked the one trained in Jw patients to perfom-he was in the hospital, but he wasnt asked despite the JW rep asking for him, in the end she lay in a coma for 3 days and eventually died.
the experts who looked over the medical notes said that many mistakes had been made and that if correct procedures had been followed out she may well have been living today, i was told by her husband that the surgeon who carried out the hysterectomy at one point came out of theatre ringing his hands and the JW rep was ringing around larger hospitals trying to get more experienced surgeons to come and help out and borrow equipment but there was none available

the outcome was that there were difficulties when performing the caeserean and that they should have performed an emergency hysterectomy straightaway, there are legal government authorised procedures that surgeons carry out when operating on JW,s it was not that she didnt have a blood transfusion that she lost her life. but you can see how these stories get told, they automatically blame JW,s for not accepting blood, its not always the case.

hope im making myself clear!!!!

highlander- what a horrible comment to make when you dont know the full situation.

i refused blood when i was having a ceasarian, am i a selfish cow then?

im leaving this thread now as its getting too personal for my liking.

ah, thanks, I see.

Blu, I've never seen old people in the UK as badly off as I've seen in India. At least in the UK the letter, if not the spirit, of the law treats them as equal. But tbh, I feel quite strongly that old people get a raw deal in so many places.

Anyway, got to get dd from school now.

We can and should judge others on their religious beliefs, especially when appalling decisions like this are made in their name. Why should religion be immune from discussion and criticism?

I wonder how the children will feel about the faith and about their family when they are older.

im absolutely disgusted by that comment and have reported it.

Richard - I'm a devout Christian, and I try to keep an open mind with regards to other people's beliefs (or non-beliefs) after all it is a personal choice and not anyone's business. However I find in this particular case very hard not to be judgy - those poor babies! I honestly don't know where it says in the bible that you can't give or accept blood! I cannot see that it would be God's purpose to leave these 2 babies without a mother when there was the medical help to save her life