Not on JW.org: THANK YOU!! Jehovah's Witnesses sue hospital after hospital honors NO BLOOD request.

Balaamsass2

Home » Articles » WOOD News » Should Jehovah's Witness be able to sue after refusing blood...

Should Jehovah's Witness be able to sue after refusing blood transfusion?

Permalink Posted Tuesday, December 2nd 2014 @ 7pm

The Michigan State Supreme court has refused to hear the case of a Jehovah's Witness who died after receiving a kidney transplant. After the operation in 2007 the woman began to undergo symptoms of rejection. Doctors to the family she needed a blood transfusion, but they refused on religious grounds. After the woman died the family sued claiming negligence. The high court rejected the theory out of hand.

EndofMysteries

Great, if anything the court should allow them to sue the WT org. I bet if the WT org was responsible for those who die for not taking blood, "new light" would quickly be revealed that it is infact okay to take blood.

LostGeneration

Wow, now there be some ballsy JWs, suing the hospital after refusing their recommendation.

Idiots.

AudeSapere

That kidney could have been given to someone with a greater appreciation of the life they have in THIS system.

-Aude.

NAVYTOWN

Oh my, I don't think they will have space for this article in upcoming Watchtower and Awake magazines.....

stillin

It doesn't seem as though the death was actually because of not having a blood transfusion. It sounds as though the transplant was rejected. Whether there was negligence has yet to be determined. The hospital could make the case that the best care was given purely because they were honoring the witness' request And added caution was called for. But that's witnesses for you. No gratitude.

thedepressedsoul

I heard a good analogy the other day.

If I jump out of a two story window for the fun of it I would be putting my life in danger I think most would agree. Now if the house was burning down and the only chance I had of survival was to jump out that window almost everyone would say I did it to save my life and would agree on that choice.

Now take that with blood. To just abuse blood for the fun of it I would agree that it is completely wrong. Now if your survival depended on blood, even if it may come with risks, it’d be worth doing to save your life. Somehow I think God (if he’s out there) would agree.

tidalblitz

I heard a good analogy the other day.

If I jump out of a two story window for the fun of it I would be putting my life in danger I think most would agree. Now if the house was burning down and the only chance I had of survival was to jump out that window almost everyone would say I did it to save my life and would agree on that choice.

Now take that with blood. To just abuse blood for the fun of it I would agree that it is completely wrong. Now if your survival depended on blood, even if it may come with risks, it’d be worth doing to save your life. Somehow I think God (if he’s out there) would agree.

That is a great analogy! Gotta remember that one.

hamsterbait

Actually there might well be grounds for suing the WTBTS if your loved one dies.

The Blood brochures over the years have DELIBERATELY misinformed members of the risks of blood, they have used out of context and outdated quotes (one from 1672) to show how refusing blood can be advantageous, even working for the survival of a patient and they have threatened those who might take blood with DF, DA (death by Divine decree) ie COERCION. Just as they did with organ transplants.

DF for taking blood was brought in about 1961, as dubs were still taking it, despite the prohibition starting in the 50s. This is evident use of threat to force compliance.

I bet a good lawyer could win a substantial settlement... Bring it on!

jwfacts

And JWs wonder why people do not respect their views on blood.

Not on JW.org: THANK YOU!! Jehovah's Witnesses sue hospital after hospital honors NO BLOOD request.

Should Jehovah's Witness be able to sue after refusing blood transfusion?

Share this