Calls to amend Quebec Civil Code mount in wake of Jehovah's Witness death

by OrphanCrow 7 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • OrphanCrow

    Calls to amend Quebec Civil Code mount in wake of Jehovah's Witness death

    Calls to reform Quebec's Civil Code are mounting in response to the death of Éloïse Dupuis, a 26-year-old Jehovah's Witness woman, six days after she gave birth in October.

    Emergency situations

    Dr. Antoine Payot, director of the ethics unit at Montreal's Sainte-Justine Hospital, says his clinical experience raises serious questions about the validity of refusals in emergency situations.

    Those doubts led Payot and his colleague, emergency pediatrician Dr. Guylaine Larose, to pen a recent opinion piece in Montreal's La Presse newspaper calling for the Civil Code's modification.

    In an interview with CBC, the doctors said they want the law changed to allow medical practitioners faced with a life-or-death situation to provide life-saving treatment.

    *read full article at link

  • Vidiot

    Usually takes a number of deaths to change any entrenched law.

  • flipper
    I agree the laws need to be changed in Canada for these types of situations and ALSO in the United States . Problem here in the States is religion in general is viewed as a " sacred cow " that can do no wrong or can't be touched in the name of alleged " freedom of religion " . Which of course I think I is ridiculous. What if practicing that " freedom of religion " causes thousands of deaths ? Then who gets held accountable ? It's usually not religious leaders. It usually ends up being no one held accountable. Just another reason I am so against organized religion. Religion literally gets away with murder in most societies
  • evilApostate

    I think that parents should not be allowed to force minors to refuse life saving treatment involving blood.

    There should also be no coercion on Watchtower's part if a member wants to take blood; i.e. no disfellowshipping/disassociating for taking blood. It should be a personal choice.

  • Vidiot

    evilApostate - "...minors to refuse life saving treatment..."

    I think the argument is that - technically - minors can't really "refuse" life-saving medical treatment, on account of them being, y'know, minors...

    ...they're not legal adults, so it's not (entirely) up to them.

  • ScenicViewer

    Hospital Liaison Committees, far too often, are there to run interference between Dr and patient, and to exert undue influence on the patient, which is what happened in the Éloïse Dupuis case according to a previous article, in spite of compelling evidence that she didn't fully agree with Watchtower's no-blood policy.

    There are a hundred ways to browbeat someone into doing something, then claim in the end that it was all their decision. Watchtower and it's appointed Elders are expert at it. (You wouldn't want to disappoint Jehovah, would you? It will be like going to sleep and waking up in God's new world, where you will live forever. If you violate God's law on blood you would be giving up everlasting life; you don't want that, do you? Etc)

    When a patient is in a weakened condition it's much easier to manipulate them.

    If HLCs want to transfer information to Drs regarding procedures, or to put them in touch with other medical staff around the world who are more experiened, fine, but HLCs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a patient.

  • OrphanCrow
    evilapostate: I think that parents should not be allowed to force minors to refuse life saving treatment involving blood.

    I agree. I think that if a parent refuses a life saving blood transfusion for their minor child that it should be a criminal offense. If parents started getting charged for placing their child's life in danger, more children would get the medical care that they deserve.

    Most countries have acts/laws that allow a doctor to transfuse a minor but that doesn't stop the JWs from acting out their blood phobia on vulnerable children. And it doesn't stop those medical doctors who think that it is just fine to try out alternative and experimental procedures on minor children when they decide that they will "respect" the parents' wishes.

    How that applies to this case here, where a young mother died and left a child behind, is that the child had no say in whether or not it was okay for their mother to sacrifice herself for that blood phobia. I am totally in agreement that the child is entitled to legal representation when their future if going to be effected.

    The JWs have no regard for anyone else except themselves. The blood doctrine has got to be the most selfish doctrine ever made - the impact that this doctrine has had on the rest of the world is immeasurable. The people left behind to cope when a JW sacrifices themselves, the medical staff forced to watch someone die who didn't have to, the health care systems forced to undertake procedures that are experimental and off-label, the extra financial burden that alternative procedures entail, the legal system that gets bogged down with individuals that represent a corporation, and a donor pool that gets sucked on to support the so-called bloodless procedures that use blood products in its delivery.

    I support the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment(s). No problem - I am all in favor of it. What I am not in favor of is a corporation that gives inaccurate and incomplete medical information to people and then those people die because of that wrong advice.

    I would like to see the Watchtower held accountable for giving out bad and inaccurate medical information. Their literature and publications are full of wrong conclusions and incomplete information. Their medical advice is just plain wrong. There is no way that an argument can be made that a JW's decision is informed. The only information they have (and that information is wrong) comes directly from the WTS. And the WTS has lied. Extensively. The JWs are not informed. It is impossible for a JW to make an informed decision.

    If any other corporation gave out medical advice and that advice was erroneous, they would be forced to take their product off the market or be forced to correct their wrong information.

    The comments on the above story are revealing - there are several JW apologists who claim that EPOs are a suitable and effective treatment for blood loss. That is incorrect - it is false. EPOs, used as the JWs do, are not effective for extreme blood loss and yet the WT still tells their adherents that EPOs are better and more effective.

    I don't have a problem with someone refusing a blood transfusion or any other medical treatment. I want that option for myself. But I do have a problem when that decision is based on faulty information. If I decided to refuse a medical procedure because I believed that the procedure was bad, and yet I was given the wrong information to arrive at that decision, then I would be upset and so would all my friends and family who would be effected by that bad information.

  • DesirousOfChange

    The JWs have no regard for anyone else except themselves.

    The fact is that there are plenty of JWs who will rally around the right for someone else to choose to die over the blood issue. Evidently, many of them sing a different tune when it is their own life, or that of their loved ones, that is at stake.

Share this