Doctor under fire after saving woman's life


Recommended Posts

A doctor at S?rlandet hospital in southern Norway has come in for heavy criticism after giving a woman a blood transfusion despite her written request not to receive the treatment under any circumstances.

The 30-year-old woman, a Jehovah?s Witness, was given blood by the doctor after complications arose as she gave birth to her second child in the summer of 2010, newspaper F?drelandsvennen reports.

Local patient rights official Eli Gotteberg has now called on the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision to launch an inquiry into whether the doctor violated the patient?s rights.

Although the doctor?s action may have saved her life, the woman reserved the right to refuse treatment if she wished, Gotteberg said. She added that physicians could decline in advance to treat Jehovah?s Witnesses if they felt this created the kind of ethical dilemmas they would rather avoid.

?Wherever the Bible is clear, we aim to adhere strictly to it,? said Jehovah?s Witness spokesman Tom Frisvold.

?And the Bible is very clear that people should refrain from blood, through food or injection."

Frisvold added that it was customary for Norwegian hospitals to respect patients' requests not to be given blood.

S?rlandet hospital informed the doctor that he had acted improperly when he failed to take swift action to halt the woman?s bleeding. Had he heeded requests by the woman and her husband to have her taken immediately to an operating theatre, she would likely not have lost so much blood that the situation became life-threatening. The doctor no longer employed at the hospital.

The woman and her child both survived and are in good health, Gotteberg said.

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :/

Yep. If you survive and nothing foreign is left inside you, I call it a "WIN"...

It makes no sense to then complain about HOW you lived... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion at it's finest.

Religion doesn't change anything about the facts. She made a written statement saying not to do it and the doctor did it anyway. Even none religious people do this and if the doctor treats them anyway, it's illegal just the same.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :/

Only if you were told specifically not to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salute to the doctor! He risked his carrier and job, and saved this woman's life. Letting her go must have been a hard thing to do, since she had just given birth.

If I was the doctor, I would have probably done the same thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion doesn't change anything about the facts. She made a written statement saying not to do it and the doctor did it anyway. Even none religious people do this and if the doctor treats them anyway, it's illegal just the same.

Only if you were told specifically not to.

Religion is what stops most people from accepting scientificly proven methods of saving your life. Not many people actually refuse blood transfers who aren't JW.

I understand cases of people refusing chemo and other treatments that don't always cure or save you, but a blood transfer is something that is normally a good idea when needed...

But hey, maybe the doctor should have just let her die..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she had a "do not resuscitate", I know it's must have been very difficult for the doctor to go against all his training, he should really follow her wishes.

Personally I think they are a bit strange, they won't even let a doctor help their dying children........that's just mental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she had a "do not resuscitate", I know it's must have been very difficult for the doctor to go against all his training, he should really follow her wishes.

Personally I think they are a bit strange, they won't even let a doctor help their dying children........that's just mental.

They basically believe that it isn't worth risking their "eternal soul" for a extended life on this plain. It is just unproven brainwashing that is making them basically choose death. But maybe we should just let them all die off, and then we won't have to worry about it after a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he was a good doctor, he would have known that there's lots of alternatives...

If there was a way, I'm sure he would've done it. Currently, he probably is going to loose his job, or even go to jail. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is what stops most people from accepting scientificly proven methods of saving your life. Not many people actually refuse blood transfers who aren't JW.

I understand cases of people refusing chemo and other treatments that don't always cure or save you, but a blood transfer is something that is normally a good idea when needed...

But hey, maybe the doctor should have just let her die..

Got statistics to prove that's why "most" people refuse it? I'm not saying that its not true btw. Just doubting that it is. I would say most old people for example refuse it because they are "done." Other people just because they can't afford it.

The reasons for not wanting a treatment are irrelevant though. It is still a matter of basic human rights. Doctors should not do anything to a patient that they specifically state they do not want.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got statistics to prove that's why "most" people refuse it? I'm not saying that its not true btw. Just doubting that it is. I would say most old people for example refuse it because they are "done." Other people just because they can't afford it.

The reasons for not wanting a treatment are irrelevant though. It is still a matter of basic human rights. Doctors should not do anything to a patient that they specifically state they do not want.

A doctors job is to save lives. Not let them die. You were the one saying that a lot of people refuse it, so I would rather ask you to prove the facts. Googles "refusing blood transfers" and other methods of stating it basically brings up a TON of religious arguements around it. Most people who don't believe it to be a "sin" don't refuse their life being saved.

There is also a huge difference from some 99 year old guy being done with life, and some 40ish year old woman with a new born....

If the lady shoudl have found a JW faith based medical facility that would have just let her die, with a doctor who would have been fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A doctors job is to save lives. Not let them die. You were the one saying that a lot of people refuse it, so I would rather ask you to prove the facts. Googles "refusing blood transfers" and other methods of stating it basically brings up a TON of religious arguements around it. Most people who don't believe it to be a "sin" don't refuse their life being saved.

Come on. Really? I know your not new to the internet. Religious fanatics and other illogical bs always end up at the top of Google results. I also never said a lot of people refuse it so try again. You said, and I quote "Religion is what stops most people from accepting scientificly proven methods of saving your life."

And again, my point is this, and this has nothing to do with religion. If someone refused treatment, that is their right. That is the reason this doctor is under fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on. Really? I know your not new to the internet. Religious fanatics and other illogical bs always end up at the top of Google results. I also never said a lot of people refuse it so try again. You said, and I quote "Religion is what stops most people from accepting scientificly proven methods of saving your life."

And again, my point is this, and this has nothing to do with religion. If someone refused treatment, that is their right. That is the reason this doctor is under fire.

Prove it then. You can't tell me to and not do the same. I already showed you how I can prove mine. Just google what I said. Now instead, if you are going to provide a counter point, you should do the same. Basically if you are, you are doing what all religions basically do. They refuse to provide proof and just insist that they are right. I can easily find many articles and other writings about JW and other religions that disctate how a person should live that goes against what medical science has proven to help and not hurt a body. You gave 1 example of "old people not wanting to live" , but claim that there are plenty of non JW faith that refuse the blood transfers. I tried to find that by goolging, but didn't. So please, show your claim of evidence.

It's the doctors right to not feel like he killed a patient, and have his whole life probably ruined, in a downward spiral of depression, due to someones stupid idiotic belief.

There is a reason not many doctors want to work with JW. They don't want to have the guilt of someone dieing due to their neglect. It is a very heavy burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was the doctor, I wouldn't want to know someone died under my watch if I knew I could have saved them somehow. No way I want that on my conscience, the rest of my life. She may want his head, but I don't think she has thought about how HE would FEEL, if he just let her die. This is just wrong.. :/

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Doctor came out ahead on this. He made a stuff-up which led to her losing so much blood.

If he respected her wishes, he would be sued for malpractice as his mistake would have caused her to lose too much blood, causing death.

If he went against her wishes, he could cover up his mistake and have only a minor spot of bother for violating her rights.

Lets see, medical malpractice causing death or disrespecting the wishes of a Jehovah?s Witness? I will take #2 thanks.

Moral of the story. Don't take on a Jehovah Witness patients under any circumstance, even for routine procedures. If you make any sort of mistake that could lead to the patient dying, you would be completely powerless to fix your mistake before it's too late unless you "violate the patients rights" and get fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove it then. You can't tell me to and not to the same. I already showed you how I can prove mine. Just google what I said. Now instead, if you are going to provide a counter point, you should do the same.

It's the doctors right to not feel like he killed a patient, and have his whole life probably ruined, in a downward spiral of depression, due to someones stupid idiotic belief.

There is a reason not many doctors want to work with JW. They don't want to have the guilt of someone dieing due to their neglect. It is a very heavy burden.

Your still arguing that a patient has no right to what happens in their own life. No reason to talk with you about this subject anymore because your ignorance is just amazing. My grandfather died last year due to cancer. He had it in his hearth, lungs, and liver. He refused all treatment other than pain meds knowing that all the treatments would do is prolong his life 6 months to a year, all of which is spent in a hospital. Half a million dollars in debt that he wouldn't be alive to pay off, and would be put on his family. Clearly, he was a religious fanatic that refused treatment and doctors should have ignored it. O wait, he was atheist.

You, not I stated that most people refuse treatments for religious reasons. You stated it first. I said I doubted it. Not that I know for a fact. You said it is a fact that can be proven by a search on Google. You are the one making bogus claims. Not I. The burden on proof is on you. It is not my job to look-up your baseless lies with no proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Doctor came out ahead on this. He made a stuff-up which led to her losing so much blood.

If he respected her wishes, he would be sued for malpractice as his mistake would have caused her to lose too much blood, causing death.

If he went against her wishes, he could cover up his mistake and have only a minor spot of bother for violating her rights.

Lets see, medical malpractice causing death or disrespecting the wishes of a Jehovah?s Witness? I will take #2 thanks.

Moral of the story. Don't take on a Jehovah Witness patients under any circumstance, even for routine procedures. If you make any sort of mistake that could lead to the patient dying, you would be completely powerless to fix your mistake before it's too late unless you "violate the patients rights" and get fired.

Many doctors do just that. Many refuse to work with any JW because of that. But those that do, risk a ton of trouble. It is basically a lose/lose situation. They don't want a person to die, but they risk their whole livelyhood because of these idiologies.

Your still arguing that a patient has no right to what happens in their own life. No reason to talk with you about this subject anymore because your ignorance is just amazing. My grandfather died last year due to cancer. He had it in his hearth, lungs, and liver. He refused all treatment other than pain meds knowing that all the treatments would do is prolong his life 6 months to a year, all of which is spent in a hospital. Half a million dollars in debt that he wouldn't be alive to pay off, and would be put on his family. Clearly, he was a religious fanatic that refused treatment and doctors should have ignored it. O wait, he was atheist.

You, not I stated that most people refuse treatments for religious reasons. You stated it first. I said I doubted it. Not that I know for a fact. You said it is a fact that can be proven by a search on Google. You are the one making bogus claims. Not I. The burden on proof is on you. It is not my job to look-up your baseless lies with no proof.

They shouldn't have a right when they are putting it in anothers hands. If you don't want to live, don't go to a doctor. You shouldn't put the burden of your death on anyone if you don't want to live. If you are going to a doctor for help, you should abide by the doctors wishes to better your life. If you don't, then why the hell are you going to a doctor anyway?

Again, there is a huge difference in a 80 yr old with cancer that can only have his life extended a few years at possible, and a 40 year old lady who can live another 40-50 years with 1 blood transfer. Please, stop being so narrow minded about issues. 2 totally different situations and outcomes to the type of help being provided. If the blood transfer would only prolong her life another 6 months, while all the time, she was living in radiation and pain, then hell yeah just die. But when the treatment can actually extend your life for another lifetime and basically issue free, that is something totally different.

Just like a kid who moves back in with their parents. They must abide by their parents rules and wishes while in the house right? If you don't want to, don't move back in. Same with doctors as I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.