Court rules to allow blood transfusion

Court rules to allow blood transfusion

There are 322 comments on the The Namibian story from Sep 26, 2012, titled Court rules to allow blood transfusion. In it, The Namibian reports that:

THE legal stalemate over the medical treatment of a Windhoek resident who has been refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds is continuing, after a High Court ruling which yesterday authorised her medical doctor to provide the necessary treatment, including a blood transplant, to her.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Namibian.

First Prev
of 17
Next Last

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#1 Sep 26, 2012
This ruling is absolutely incredible. With proof before their eyes that there are viable alternatives to blood transfusions, this court rules that the woman should have a blood transfusion.

They are going to have to catch her before they can do it, as she is walking out of the hospital in the strength she has received from the alternative treatments.

Satan's governments are as proud and haughty and stubborn as the one who owns them.

Since: Aug 12

Montréal, Canada

#2 Sep 26, 2012
I think that's fair.

If doctors prescribe a certain form of medical treatment and someone doesn't want it I think they have the right to that decision.

If a Witness comes into the hospital in critical condition and its apparent that doctors would treat that person with blood however they find a blood card in their wallet or purse they should promptly escort them back out of the hospital and call a cab to take them home.

Everyone should be responsible for their own actions and decisions in life even if that means their life or death.

It's called freedom.

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#3 Sep 26, 2012
MakesTheTruthHisOwn wrote:
I think that's fair.
If doctors prescribe a certain form of medical treatment and someone doesn't want it I think they have the right to that decision.
If a Witness comes into the hospital in critical condition and its apparent that doctors would treat that person with blood however they find a blood card in their wallet or purse they should promptly escort them back out of the hospital and call a cab to take them home.
Everyone should be responsible for their own actions and decisions in life even if that means their life or death.
It's called freedom.
So you think it should be "my way or the highway"? There are much better and safer treatments than blood transfusions that any educated and skilled doctor can use. Why would the person have to be sent away? Why shouldn't the acceptable forms of treatments be applied?

Since: Aug 12

Montréal, Canada

#4 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think it should be "my way or the highway"? There are much better and safer treatments than blood transfusions that any educated and skilled doctor can use. Why would the person have to be sent away? Why shouldn't the acceptable forms of treatments be applied?
Doctors spend hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to keep pace with the best treatment available. Most if not all are comfortable with blood transfusions and maybe a few are comfortable with alternative treatments. If you want alternative treatments then go find a JW doctor; Oh that's right you don't believe in post secondary education?

Bottom line is you don't have the right to tell a doctor how best to treat you as they are the professionals not you. They put the time and money into their education not you.

Since: Aug 12

Montréal, Canada

#5 Sep 26, 2012
Also if you refuse medical treatment of any kind the government shouldn't subsidize your income because of it. Why should the tax payer pay for your ignorance?

If the mother of her children chooses to refuse a blood transfusion and she dies then it should be understood that no tax payer monies will be allocated to that family afterwards to pad the loss of income from someone that committed suicide.
Stingo

Brantford, Canada

#6 Sep 26, 2012
I find this a very sad case, both for the mother, and her kids. She's blinded by a cult, but the fact is, she's an adult and should be able to make that choice. However, she should not be wasting the courts time, or the hospital's. This may sound harsh, but her treatment should be given the lowest priority. Patients who want to live come first. No doctor should be forced into spending their entire shift trying to convince a suicide case to want to live. And if the hospital needs the bed, she should be sent home

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#7 Sep 26, 2012
Adults can do what they want. When it comes to a child's life, then the courts need to step in.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#8 Sep 26, 2012
As I said before... She should have had this choise in place long before... Yet! it appears that she didn't bring it up until it was already a problem.. One is generally pregnant 9 months.. Time enough to get your ducks in a row .. AND .why is her brother..involved in the first place.. Is she a unwed mother??? I saw no mention of a husband.. yet! IF there is one ..why was he not mentioned or taken into account??

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#9 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think it should be "my way or the highway"? There are much better and safer treatments than blood transfusions that any educated and skilled doctor can use. Why would the person have to be sent away? Why shouldn't the acceptable forms of treatments be applied?
.
. Contrary to what you think..there are not a whole lot of exceptable treatments.. Nor are altenative treatment always readily available at a moments notice... Apparently.. Given the time for her own body to restore it's blood supply worked...( In her case )
The problem..as we have seen in many JW cases is ..they want a media coverage.. they want to make an issue.. If they didn't well then ... One would have their wishs on record..in advance.. when it is at all possible.. 9 months ..kind of makes that possible. When a Dr.. takes the oath.. and in a emergency situation is trying to maintain that oath ..( OH! I don't take blood) is yet another thing he shouldn't have to deal with.. You dealing with a window of time.. and probable irrational thoughts and figuring them out is yet another problem... You ..EE may feel that she has rights... But you forget that the Doctor.. also..
is bound by his oath to care for the patient.. And the fact that there are ..other patients.. in need of his attention..

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#10 Sep 26, 2012
This sister had everything in place and, as can clearly be seen, her plan worked beautifully. The problem was the interference of her relatives.

It is interesting that people of Satan's world will argue that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body if she wants to kill a baby that she has caused to grow inside her body, but someone else should decide whether she can use a different form of treatment than blood transfusions for something that happened beyond her control.

The government now is seeking to have permission already in place so that people won't have a chance to get well with alternative treatments before they force a blood transfusion into them. They lost out on that endeavor this time, but they want to make sure they get the blood in more rapidly next time before the patient gets well and goes home from the hospital.

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#11 Sep 26, 2012
MakesTheTruthHisOwn wrote:
Also if you refuse medical treatment of any kind the government shouldn't subsidize your income because of it. Why should the tax payer pay for your ignorance?
If the mother of her children chooses to refuse a blood transfusion and she dies then it should be understood that no tax payer monies will be allocated to that family afterwards to pad the loss of income from someone that committed suicide.
Would that law be for all instances of "suicide", including overindulgence in food, the use of tobacco, failure to exercise, alcohol and drug abuse, reckless driving, not keeping batteries in the smoke alarms, not keeping electrical wiring maintained, going out in a lightning storm, not using the stair rail, and things like these?
Prime

United States

#12 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
This sister had everything in place and, as can clearly be seen, her plan worked beautifully. The problem was the interference of her relatives.
It is interesting that people of Satan's world will argue that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body if she wants to kill a baby that she has caused to grow inside her body, but someone else should decide whether she can use a different form of treatment than blood transfusions for something that happened beyond her control.
The government now is seeking to have permission already in place so that people won't have a chance to get well with alternative treatments before they force a blood transfusion into them. They lost out on that endeavor this time, but they want to make sure they get the blood in more rapidly next time before the patient gets well and goes home from the hospital.
Stop lying EE! It's obvious the woman didn't have the no blood thing sorted or she wouldn't have had to tell the doctor anything!

It would have been her own fault!
Prime

United States

#13 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that law be for all instances of "suicide", including overindulgence in food, the use of tobacco, failure to exercise, alcohol and drug abuse, reckless driving, not keeping batteries in the smoke alarms, not keeping electrical wiring maintained, going out in a lightning storm, not using the stair rail, and things like these?
No just for suicide by refusal of blood! Idiot!

Since: Aug 12

Montréal, Canada

#14 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that law be for all instances of "suicide", including overindulgence in food, the use of tobacco, failure to exercise, alcohol and drug abuse, reckless driving, not keeping batteries in the smoke alarms, not keeping electrical wiring maintained, going out in a lightning storm, not using the stair rail, and things like these?
Insurance already doesn't cover many of those things and a co-worker of mine just informed me that if you refuse medical treatment such as a blood transfusion insurance won't cover you either.

So there is already a president being set.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#15 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
This sister had everything in place and, as can clearly be seen, her plan worked beautifully. The problem was the interference of her relatives.
It is interesting that people of Satan's world will argue that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body if she wants to kill a baby that she has caused to grow inside her body, but someone else should decide whether she can use a different form of treatment than blood transfusions for something that happened beyond her control.
The government now is seeking to have permission already in place so that people won't have a chance to get well with alternative treatments before they force a blood transfusion into them. They lost out on that endeavor this time, but they want to make sure they get the blood in more rapidly next time before the patient gets well and goes home from the hospital.
.
.Polytechnic of Namibia lecturer Efigenia Semente was not in a fit mental state when she indicated her refusal of a potentially life-saving blood transfusion following the birth of her third child in a Windhoek hospital on September 8,
HELLO! you can not read???
The message your indicating in your last lines .. Is brought on only because the t's weren't crossed nor the i's dotted.. Now.. that would be the fault of the patient in this case... SO! either you grow up.. And take care of things like you should OR suffer the consequences of the Government.. telling you what to do.. After awhile your many lawsuits come back to slap you in the face... The Conti case in point..( But this is our first offence ) Dimwit! Pharasiee.

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#16 Sep 26, 2012
MakesTheTruthHisOwn wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance already doesn't cover many of those things and a co-worker of mine just informed me that if you refuse medical treatment such as a blood transfusion insurance won't cover you either.
So there is already a president being set.
When we obey God's laws we can look to him for support. Threats like yours would never force a Christian to disobey God's law on blood. Our stand is scripturally based and non-negotiable.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#17 Sep 26, 2012
hi Maravilla. i read the article two times. she was found to be incontinent yes.. some here do not know how to read or forget to speak about the whole story.
if jehovah witnesses refuse blood because they were brainwashed then they should have papers intact and given to the lawyers.
if this woman who WAS NOT IN HER MENTAL STATE did not get blood, and then decided in the future to sue the doctors and the hospital she can then what..
doctors and nurses pay thousands sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for medical malpractice. as a taxpayer i want no part of having to pay for jws who are being lied to by the big men in NY.
if they do not like it with all the millions of dollars this org has in real estate and other stuff then open up a chain of hospitals for Jehovah witnesses and hire drs who will put their degree on the line for people to die.
let them deal with themselves. it makes no sense this org has lied about the world ending and they now have the followers think that they cannot have blood... that is not what the Lord said.
Prime

United States

#18 Sep 26, 2012
eagleeye2 wrote:
<quoted text>
When we obey God's laws we can look to him for support. Threats like yours would never force a Christian to disobey God's law on blood. Our stand is scripturally based and non-negotiable.
It's really sad when nut cases like you twist Scripture into something you made up in your head to seem pure! Unfortunately idiots like you aren't banned from having children!

Kill yourself if you want but the government needs to step in to protect your children!

“John 4:23,24”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#19 Sep 26, 2012
unlisted wrote:
hi Maravilla. i read the article two times. she was found to be incontinent yes.. some here do not know how to read or forget to speak about the whole story.
if jehovah witnesses refuse blood because they were brainwashed then they should have papers intact and given to the lawyers.
if this woman who WAS NOT IN HER MENTAL STATE did not get blood, and then decided in the future to sue the doctors and the hospital she can then what..
doctors and nurses pay thousands sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for medical malpractice. as a taxpayer i want no part of having to pay for jws who are being lied to by the big men in NY.
if they do not like it with all the millions of dollars this org has in real estate and other stuff then open up a chain of hospitals for Jehovah witnesses and hire drs who will put their degree on the line for people to die.
let them deal with themselves. it makes no sense this org has lied about the world ending and they now have the followers think that they cannot have blood... that is not what the Lord said.
She was found to be incontinent???? ROFL!
MAMMON

United States

#20 Sep 26, 2012
She's a big girl, let her go. If she doesn't want it she shouldn't get it. Now if she was a minor then yeah, let the courts step in. Let the crazies be crazy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 3 min Faith 522,418
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Eagle 12 - 82,018
News $66M class action sex abuse suit filed against ... 13 min PrufSammy 39
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 14 min Chuck 688,916
hell is a real place. or at least, tries to get... 26 min susanblange 126
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 54 min SuperHealthyProstate 13,270
think pope francis is burning up in hell? 7027 1 hr Ben Avraham 26
More from around the web