Oh the joys of 'New Light getting Brighter and Brighter!'
WT BLOOD GUILT EXPOSED TO THE WORLD
Jehovah's Witness parents in transfusion case can cross-examine ...
The Canadian Press - 30 minutes ago
VANCOUVER - The Jehovah's Witness parents of sextuplets have won the right to cross-examine the medical professionals who provided affidavits supporting ...
Jehovah's Witness parents in transfusion case can cross-examine doctorsVANCOUVER - The Jehovah's Witness parents of sextuplets have won the right to cross-examine the medical professionals who provided affidavits supporting blood transfusions for some of their babies. The babies were seized when the parents refused to give their consent for the transfusions because their religious beliefs prohibit the procedure. The parents are challenging the seizure, with their lawyer arguing fundamental justice was denied to his clients and the seizure of their children was a breach of the Charter of Rights. In April, Chief Justice Donald Brenner turned down an application by the parents' lawyer Shane Brady to cross-examine doctors, social workers and a government lawyer over the affidavits. But Brenner ruled Tuesday because the director of child, family and community services relied on the affidavits filed by the doctors in seizing the babies, it is appropriate to allow the doctors to be cross-examined. The judge also granted the director the right to cross-examine medial professionals who filed affidavits on behalf of the parents. The parents' challenge of the seizures resumes Oct. 24. Two of the sextuplets died within weeks of their Jan. 7 birth while two boys and two girls survived.
Hospital begins landmark case over transfusion
RTE.ie, Ireland - 2 hours ago
The Coombe Hospital has begun a landmark legal action against a woman who is a Jehovah Witness over her refusal to consent to a life saving blood ...
Hospital begins landmark case over transfusion
Tuesday, 2 October 2007 22:26 The Coombe Hospital has begun a landmark legal action against a woman who is a member of the Jehovah Witness community, over her refusal to consent to a life saving blood transfusion. The action arises from an emergency court order obtained by the hospital in September last year permitting it to give the woman a transfusion. The woman, who can only be identified as Ms K, had lost 80% of her blood while giving birth to a baby boy on 21 September 2006. She had objected to a transfusion on religious grounds. The court was told at the time that she would die if the transfusion was not given. Ms K at the time was a 24-year-old French speaking asylum seeker who spoke very little English. This action by the hospital against the woman may raise important constitutional issues relating to the right to life, to freedom of conscience and to the free practice of religion. The Attorney General has been joined as a defendant as these issues of constitutional interpretation may arise. Senior Counsel Gerry Hogan for the hospital told the court the central issue of the case was whether the woman had genuinely and validly refused the transfusion. The court heard staff were informed of Ms K's objections to the transfusion through a friend who was with her and was also a Jehovah Witness. The hospital also had concerns about her medical condition when she refused the transfusion. The hospital also claims that under the right to life protections in the Constitution, it had a duty to protect and safeguard the woman's right to life. It claims it was also obliged to protect the family life of the woman and her child and to safeguard the rights of her child to be nurtured and reared by his mother. It says Ms K's constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and free practice of religion do not extend to enabling her to decline appropriate medical treatment. Ms K is opposing the action. In a counter claim, she says the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse medical treatment. She says the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person by giving her the transfusion and she is entitled to damages.
The doctors fighting against the WTS to save a life when they claim that they are a life saving organisation! How moronic can the JWs be to believe such nonsense about God objecting to blood transfusions.
It's blood voluntarily given precisely for the purpose of saving lives.
How skillfully the WTBTS manages to place its own foot in its own mouth!
What exactly is the point that the WTBTS is trying to make by continuing its harrassment of medical professionals who saved the lives of four of these babies?
The chart that the WT lawyers came up with at the last hearing 'demonstrating' how low the babies' blood counts could have got before blood was necessary was a total farce! How low would the blood counts have needed to get before the WTBTS allowed the babies to have blood? Exactly! Never! These babies would have been sacrificed on the altar of the not so might Watchtower Society simply for them to save face!
Afterall, all the doctors really needed to do was to separate the blood up into little fractions and give it to the babies a bit at a time an then it wouldn't have mattered at all......would it?!
Since when were such idiots permitted the right to decide what medical treatment anyone needs! Shouldn't there be a law protecting people from such quackery?!
There is? So why isn't it enforced?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/143415/1.ashx up at JWD Master gives evidence in transfusion case
RTE.ie, Ireland - 39 minutes ago
Dr Fitzpatrick said he was put in a difficult situation after the then 24-year-old woman, known as Ms K, told doctors she was a Jehovah's Witness and was
Transfusion refusal was 'difficult situation'
Wednesday, 3 October 2007 18:12 The Master of the Coombe Hospital, Dr Chris Fitzpatrick, has said he and the hospital faced an unprecedented decision last year, when a young woman refused a blood transfusion after suffering a massive haemorrhage. Dr Fitzpatrick said he was put in a difficult situation after the then 24-year-old woman, known as Ms K, told doctors she was a Jehovah's Witness and was objecting to the transfusion. She suffered the haemorrhage after giving birth to her son on the 21 September 2006 and lost around 80% of her blood. But he said he had no doubt that giving Ms K a transfusion was the correct medical decision. Ms K received the blood after the hospital obtained a High Court order allowing the transfusion to go ahead. Dr Fitzpatrick said that in the early hours of the following morning, Ms K told him she did not regret the transfusion. He said the woman had been registered as a Roman Catholic on previous visits to the hospital. He said it was unprecedented in his experience of dealing with patients from the Jehovah's Witness faith, to be told of objections just before a transfusion was due to be administered. Dr Fitzpatrick said he had spoken to Ms K a number of times and told her that she may die if she was not given the transfusion. He said she said 'no' several times and at one stage that she suggested he give her 'coke and tomatoes' as an alternative treatment. He said the hospital had a number of concerns about her capacity to give an informed consent to the transfusion. He said there were linguistic difficulties, her objections were given through a friend, Miss F, who was also a Jehovah's Witness. He said she had previously registered as a Catholic and had not told the hospital she was a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith. He said her husband was in the Congo and was uncontactable and he feared she did not appreciate the seriousness of her condition at the time
"She says the hospital committed assault and trespass on her person by giving her the transfusion and she is entitled to damages."
Reminds me of when Mr. Incredible gets sued in "The Incredibles".
The scent of a nice financial payout can make people do all sorts of ridiculous things!
Is the WT representing her by any chance and will they be taking a cut of her 'winnings' should she be awarded any?
If the WT and its members carry on in this disreputable way there will be no doctors willing to take them on!
"God saves babies from the piety of their parents." Apparently, the state also saves babies from the piety of their parents.