Doctor under fire after saving woman's life


Recommended Posts

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.

Pretty much. That is private practice is so much safer for doctors. You don't have to worry about fringe situations like this. Private practice means you choose who you treat. Big company hospitals have no choice.

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?

You just proved you didn't even read the OP or article. It was child birth. Good bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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.

amen to that, that's exactly how i see how it should be

You just proved you didn't even read the OP or article. It was child birth. Good bye

and? you can give birth in your own home if you choose, you don't HAVE to have a doctor help you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just proved you didn't even read the OP or article. It was child birth. Good bye

You do know that you can have a child born out of a hospital... been done for over hundreds of thousands of years, and it is still going on. Troll harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sorry about your grandfather, but that is completely irrelevant to this topic. Your grandfather had a terminal illness. This lady did not. Yes the lady has a right to refuse treatment, but this right was unenforceable, as the doctor would have made himself liable if he respected her rights. When something goes wrong, is he going to put her "rights" first, or himself first.

If this lady thinks that she has really done so wrong by her religion by receiving a blood transfusion without her permission, then she maybe she needs to go out and kill herself to make things right without bringing the Doctor down with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, why the hell did he do it ?

He was under no obligation to perform the transfusion other than his own personal desire to "fix" someone, now it's his problem.

Religious bull**** or not, they have the right to refuse treatment, and I'd be mighty ****ed as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about your grandfather, but that is completely irrelevant to this topic. Your grandfather had a terminal illness. This lady did not. Yes the lady has a right to refuse treatment, but this right was unenforceable, as the doctor would have made himself liable if he respected her rights. When something goes wrong, is he going to put her "rights" first, or himself first.

If this lady thinks that she has really done so wrong by her religion by receiving a blood transfusion without her permission, then she maybe she needs to go out and kill herself to make things right without bringing the Doctor down with her.

Something didn't magically go wrong like some trolls here seem to think. He made a mistake. If you make a mistake, you bear the consequences.

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

The doctor knew the country he was working in and what the right choice was in the situation and ignored it. She specifically said do not do it. If she had died, he was fully covered from her death because she could have been saved but refused it. That is why they make you sign paperwork for this sort of thing. That is why she gave a written statement. Her rights were violated. It doesn't matter why she didn't want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, why the hell did he do it ?

He was under no obligation to perform the transfusion other than his own personal desire to "fix" someone, now it's his problem.

Religious bull**** or not, they have the right to refuse treatment, and I'd be mighty ****ed as well.

^ Well, the lady still has the option of suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a nightmare scenario for a OBGYN doctor (like me). If I'd be in a similar position, I also would administer blood transfusion. The argument that he didn't listen to her family and choose an operation is laughable, as I doubt they are doctors or have a vague idea concerning disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, associated with high blood loss. It's like me telling an astronaut how to fly a space ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that bothers me is that she honestly would have apparently chosen death over this, being able to be there for her child. I mean, I always thought a mother (at least one in her right mind, even crazy ones have maternal instinct) would do anything for her child. Refusing a basic treatment, dying, leaving behind your baby so newborn it's still wet... that's really quite selfish, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like?

google it... my aunt got Hep-C from a blood trans, and had to get a liver transplant now... there's a lot of people that realize that it's safer to use the alternatives than just pumping blood into the person... plus it keeps the doctors more aware of what they're doing because they can't just cut away and pump blood if they need...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Well, the lady still has the option of suicide.

Is that one of the few countries that allows that? Seems ass backwards to me. You have the right to kill yourself, but you don't have the right to tell other people to stop saving you. Seems like a good money making scheme to me.

The only thing that bothers me is that she honestly would have apparently chosen death over this, being able to be there for her child. I mean, I always thought a mother (at least one in her right mind, even crazy ones have maternal instinct) would do anything for her child. Refusing a basic treatment, dying, leaving behind your baby so newborn it's still wet... that's really quite selfish, isn't it?

Maybe she had killer life insurance ><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, why the hell did he do it ?

He was under no obligation to perform the transfusion other than his own personal desire to "fix" someone, now it's his problem.

Religious bull**** or not, they have the right to refuse treatment, and I'd be mighty ****ed as well.

As a person, if you were a doctor, and you were doing the operation. You just delivered her baby... would you just throw your gloves down and be like, " Eh, she said not to, put the body bag over her!" ? As a doctor, I don't think you spend all your time to reach that position, to just let people die infront of you, when you have the power to help them. Especially when it is something as mundian as a blood transfer/infusion. It's not like this was anything that would really change her life. Hell, if they just didn't say a single damn thing about it, she would have never known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

google it... my aunt got Hep-C from a blood trans, and had to get a liver transplant now... there's a lot of people that realize that it's safer to use the alternatives than just pumping blood into the person... plus it keeps the doctors more aware of what they're doing because they can't just cut away and pump blood if they need...

http://en.wikipedia....lood_substitute

Haemoglobin based substitues will NOT be accepted by Jehovas witnesses (haemoglobin being a blood product). The other type of substitute is not widely available, especially not in smaller hospitals (just an information, as we don't know how big/well equipped that particular hospital is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look more anti-religion bigotry without even reading the original news article. "Lets be better than the people we're not by doing the exact same things we criticize most about them." To be honest Jehovah's Witnesses, while meaning well, annoy me greatly, but just because I don't share their particular brand of religion kool-aid I would never make such insulting generalizations or spew such hatred as has been done early on in this thread. Honestly the lady in question is a bit silly but the doctor was wrong. The article says that it's normal for hospitals to comply when patients don't want blood transfusions and this doctor ignored that. I don't think it should be any sort of career ending deal or anything but he was wrong.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look more anti-religion bigotry without even reading the original news article. "Lets be better than the people we're not by doing the exact same things we criticize most about them." To be honest Jehovah's Witnesses, while meaning well, annoy me greatly, but just because I don't share their particular brand of religion kool-aid I would never make such insulting generalizations or spew such hatred as has been done early on in this thread. Honestly the lady in question is a bit silly but the doctor was wrong. The article says that it's normal for hospitals to comply when patients don't want blood transfusions and this doctor ignored that. I don't think it should be any sort of career ending deal or anything but he was wrong.

I haven't seen any hatred... but a lot of people disagreeing with a religion that basically lets their people die, because of it's outdated rules and methods. No one has made generalizations, but facts. JW do let their children and each other die, from neglecting proven medical proceedures. So do other religions. It is not hatred, but fact. I just see annoyance and dismay at what out dated beliefs are cuasing to people in a society that should have evolved passed such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, why the hell did he do it ?

He was under no obligation to perform the transfusion other than his own personal desire to "fix" someone, now it's his problem.

Religious bull**** or not, they have the right to refuse treatment, and I'd be mighty ****ed as well.

But he made an error by allowing excessive blood loss in the first place. Would a legal disclaimer from allowing blood transfusions be enough to exonerate his liability leading to death, as it was his error that led to the situation in the first place? He may have been under obligation if did not have a legally binding disclaimer that prevents liability in the case of negligence leading to death. Even if the inability to use blood transfusions to prevent death played a factor, there could still be some liability because of the negligence that occurred in the first place.

For example, say somebody has Haemophilia (uncontrollable bleeding due to the blood not clotting) and also refuses treatments that will stop the bleeding such as band-aids, bandages or plaster. If you accidentally scratch this person, they refuse treatment, and subsequently leads to death, I am sure that he family will at least try to claim SOME liability from you for scratching the person in the first place. Not fair, because it's their own fault for refusing, but that is the legal reality that the Doctor would face if he would have listened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he made an error by allowing excessive blood loss in the first place.

Allow me to respond...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_atony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placental_abruption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta_accreta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disseminated_intravascular_coagulation

... Here are just a couple UNFORESEEABLE peripartal complication associated with excessive blood loss.

So much for "allowing" her to lose blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't an all knowing and forgiving God ... well, forgive her for this, as it was not her fault in anyway?

Exactly, but one can't argue with brain damaged individuals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was the doctor I would have been like... "Awesome, my ass is covered she has in writing not to save her life" I'm not touching that chick with a 10 foot poll. Nightly Night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BLOOD, RUINED LIVERS, AND . . .

"Ironically, blood-borne AIDS . . . has never been as great a threat as other diseases?hepatitis, for instance," explained the Washington Post.

Yes, vast numbers have got very sick and have died from such hepatitis, which has no specific treatment. According to U.S.News & World Report (May 1, 1989), about 5 percent of those given blood in the United States get hepatitis?175,000 people a year. About half become chronic carriers, and at least 1 in 5 develop cirrhosis or cancer of the liver. It is estimated that 4,000 die. Imagine the headlines you would read if a jumbo jet crashed, killing all aboard. But 4,000 deaths amount to a full jumbo jet crashing every month!

Physicians had long known that a milder hepatitis (type A) was spread through unclean food or water. Then they saw that a more serious form was spreading through blood, and they had no way to screen blood for it. Eventually, brilliant scientists learned how to detect "footprints" of this virus (type B). By the early 1970's, blood was being screened in some lands. The blood supply appeared safe and the future for blood bright! Or was it?

THE AIDS PANDEMIC ruleheader.gif

"AIDS has changed forever the way doctors and patients think about blood. And that's not a bad idea, said the doctors gathered at the National Institutes of Health for a conference on blood transfusion."?Washington Post, July 5, 1988.

The AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) pandemic has, with a vengeance, awakened people to the danger of acquiring infectious diseases from blood. Millions are now infected. It is spreading out of control. And its death rate is virtually 100 percent.

AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can be spread by blood. The modern plague of AIDS came to light in 1981. The very next year, health experts learned that the virus could probably be passed on in blood products. It is now admitted that the blood industry was slow to respond, even after tests were available to identify blood containing HIV antibodies. Testing of donor blood finally began in 1985,* but even then it was not applied to blood products that were already on the shelf.

You might feel, 'Transfusions are hazardous, but are there any high-quality alternatives?' A good question, and note the word "quality."

Everyone, including Jehovah's Witnesses, wants effective medical care of high quality. Dr. Grant E. Steffen noted two key elements: "Quality medical care is the capacity of the elements of that care to achieve legitimate medical and nonmedical goals." (The Journal of the American Medical Association, July 1, 1988) "Nonmedical goals" would include not violating the ethics or Bible-based conscience of the patient. ?Acts 15:28, 29.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/article_03.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ While an interesting read, most of what is posted is from the 80's. A lot of advancement and knowledge has changed in almost 30 years... and not all methods are vialbe for all situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any hatred... but a lot of people disagreeing with a religion that basically lets their people die, because of it's outdated rules and methods. No one has made generalizations, but facts. JW do let their children and each other die, from neglecting proven medical proceedures. So do other religions. It is not hatred, but fact. I just see annoyance and dismay at what out dated beliefs are cuasing to people in a society that should have evolved passed such things.

You wouldn't see it as hatred. The problem is that people don't just disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, they take their disagreements with JWs and apply that to entirely separate religions or the major one that JW branches off of. I have huuuuuge issues with what JWs teach but I don't then turn around and go "That's religion at it's finest." - Because that's not fair and it demeans a huge portion of the population that are generally good people same as anyone else. Regardless of what they believe in or how it differs from my personal beliefs, because that's most definitely -not- "religion at it's finest" - Religion at it's finest is all of the good stuff that those people do that they otherwise wouldn't be inclined to do. You might think that they would with or without their religion, and maybe they'd be willing to, but they wouldn't be organized to. In my community the Catholic church and one of the Muslim mosques give food, soap, toothpaste, and clothes to people in need and want nothing in return back. They don't have to be members of the church/mosque or anything, just live in the general area. So when you refer to one person or one group doing something stupid/silly/ignorant as "Religion at it's finest." you're doing a disservice to an awful lot of good people.

Referring to them as outdated beliefs that we should have evolved beyond is also pretty ignorant. it's not your place nor mine nor anyone's to say that. What is outdated and something we should have evolved beyond is treating each other like %(*@ over our differences. That's not science or having a scientific mind by the way, a scientific mind doesn't say that god doesn't exist with absolute certainty. A scientific mind says that they haven't seen any proof of a god and therefore they don't believe in one but keep their mind open to the possibility. Being entirely closeminded is the very opposite of having a scientific mind. When someone says with absolute certainty that there is no god of any kind they're the exact same kind of stubborn person that they criticize, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm not telling you what to think btw, think and believe whatever you want. I actually like reading some of your posts, but others come across extremely insensitive.

Wouldn't an all knowing and forgiving God ... well, forgive her for this, as it was not her fault in anyway?

Yes, actually. Much like how if a Muslim eats pork accidentally they'll be forgiven for that. If not in the JW faith I can only assume it's a quirk specific to JWs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't see it as hatred. The problem is that people don't just disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, they take their disagreements with JWs and apply that to entirely separate religions or the major one that JW branches off of. I have huuuuuge issues with what JWs teach but I don't then turn around and go "That's religion at it's finest." - Because that's not fair and it demeans a huge portion of the population that are generally good people same as anyone else. Regardless of what they believe in or how it differs from my personal beliefs, because that's most definitely -not- "religion at it's finest" - Religion at it's finest is all of the good stuff that those people do that they otherwise wouldn't be inclined to do. You might think that they would with or without their religion, and maybe they'd be willing to, but they wouldn't be organized to. In my community the Catholic church and one of the Muslim mosques give food, soap, toothpaste, and clothes to people in need and want nothing in return back. They don't have to be members of the church/mosque or anything, just live in the general area. So when you refer to one person or one group doing something stupid/silly/ignorant as "Religion at it's finest." you're doing a disservice to an awful lot of good people.

Referring to them as outdated beliefs that we should have evolved beyond is also pretty ignorant. it's not your place nor mine nor anyone's to say that. What is outdated and something we should have evolved beyond is treating each other like %(*@ over our differences. That's not science or having a scientific mind by the way, a scientific mind doesn't say that god doesn't exist with absolute certainty. A scientific mind says that they haven't seen any proof of a god and therefore they don't believe in one but keep their mind open to the possibility. Being entirely closeminded is the very opposite of having a scientific mind. When someone says with absolute certainty that there is no god of any kind they're the exact same kind of stubborn person that they criticize, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm not telling you what to think btw, think and believe whatever you want. I actually like reading some of your posts, but others come across extremely insensitive.

Yes, actually. Much like how if a Muslim eats pork accidentally they'll be forgiven for that. If not in the JW faith I can only assume it's a quirk specific to JWs.

If this post had 1000 "like" buttons, I'd take the time to click all of them. I salute you for being amazingly full of sense, in a world that is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.