Jehovah Witness man Refused Blood Transfusion For His Pregnant Wife Till She Died, Says It's A Sin - WELCOME TO ERICGOSSIP. : WORLD NEWS & ENTERTAINMENT.

WELCOME TO ERICGOSSIP. : WORLD  NEWS  &  ENTERTAINMENT.

Reaching The World With The Best.

Breaking

Monday, 19 February 2018

Jehovah Witness man Refused Blood Transfusion For His Pregnant Wife Till She Died, Says It's A Sin

A yet to be identified pregnant Jehovah Witness member who has been in labour for days died. Her death occurred due to her husband refusal for her to take in blood because of shortage.

A yet to be identified pregnant Jehovah Witness member who has been in labour for days died. Her death occurred due to her husband refusal for her to take in blood because of shortage.

According to a Facebook user, her husband who is a member of Jehovah Witness church said it is against the doctrine of the church. The doctor who wanted to go ahead by force had to stop because the husband threatened to take it up with him in court.

According to the husband, Jehovah witness don’t accept unknown blood it's a sin to transfuse my own blood to my wife he said.

The doctor pleaded with him to save the life of his wife, but the man refused saying' we have been working for God all of our lives and he will not fail us.

So the doctor went back to the theater, asked the woman if she has another relative close by who can sign to receive blood while she was wheeled out of the theater. The woman cried with her pale eyes and begged the husband to allow the doctors transfuse but he refused bluntly.

Some mins later, the doctors asked him to take his wife to LUTH, for better health care facilities that could condole non blood transfusion. He was requested to get an ambulance for transportation; buy the man  got a Volvo stretcher ambulance meant for dead people.


Details later...

9 comments:

  1. Wrong teaching. What a foolish act by a wicked nd selfish husband.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U don't have the right to condemn anyone's believes without having a complete knowledge. are there no blood alternative treatments? If the man refused whole blood component what about blood volume expansion did he not suggested it to the doctor or the doctor to the woman and her husband? How many patient have accepted blood transfusion and yet still dies what will u say about them and their teaching? Ask the witness abt their believes on blood issue b/4 u conclud.

      Delete
  2. I am not going to comment about anyone's faith because faith and science/logic aren't always identical twins!

    However, it's disturbing that the woman in question was conscious and presumably mentally sound at the critical moment when she allegedly pleaded with her husband to allow the transfusion. So, why did she require her husband's consent before she can receive transfusion she clearly had no religious problem with? Had it been a man who needed transfusion and did imply a desire to have it, would the doctor had even bothered to sound out the wife, not to talk of obtaining her prior consent before administering the treatment?! Are women essentially slaves or properties of their husbands?!

    This raises a substantial constitutional issue of the application of the various INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms enshrined in our constitution. The doctor in question and the health system failed this woman! If there are pro-women organization or equal rights advocacy groups in Nigeria, this here is your turf!!! Wake up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the Nigerian Government has to review her laws especially when it comes to giving consent. Husbands have no right to give consent for their wives' treatment. However, a husband can do so if the woman has lost capacity to make decisions, has no advance directive, and had made her husband her power of attorney.In this context, the poor woman had her capacity intact that could have enabled her to consent to the provided treatment. In my opinion, I think it would have been appropriate for the doctor to have considered this and go ahead to administer required treatment despite the her spousal refusal. According to autonomy and Beneficence of medical ethical principles, This is justifiable as the doctor acted in the woman's best interest. Healthcare professionals especially doctors have power to override stupid decisions like this with the intent to save life. I suggest that Nigerian healthcare providers should research more to know their rights, identify and tackle limitations such as this. Thank You.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the Nigerian Government has to review her laws especially when it comes to giving consent. Husbands have no right to give consent for their wives' treatment. However, a husband can do so if the woman has lost capacity to make decisions, has no advance directive, and had made her husband her power of attorney.In this context, the poor woman had her capacity intact that could have enabled her to consent to the provided treatment. In my opinion, I think it would have been appropriate for the doctor to have considered this and go ahead to administer required treatment despite the her spousal refusal. According to autonomy and Beneficence of medical ethical principles, This is justifiable as the doctor acted in the woman's best interest. Healthcare professionals especially doctors have power to override stupid decisions like this with the intent to save life. I suggest that Nigerian healthcare providers should research more to know their rights, identify and tackle limitations such as this. Thank You.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The focus here should not be consent, it should be about the hospital's negligence. Do patients discuss blood transfusion at the point of death? Before a woman goes to Labour room, for any right thinking person and hospital preparation procedures, a blood bank is bought down in case. It is at that point that the husband is requested to buy the blood that he tells them his faith, and the woman would not be in danger then. Then alternative measures are planned down. If the hospital does not want to continue the treatment they say so and a Jehovah Witness friendly hospital is consulted. They took the family to the middle of the sea before starting to threaten their faith, the husbands refusal made them to neglect the woman. This is absurd. Though is our kind of country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The focus here should not be consent, it should be about the hospital's negligence. Do patients discuss blood transfusion at the point of death? Before a woman goes to Labour room, for any right thinking person and hospital preparation procedures, a blood bank is bought down in case. It is at that point that the husband is requested to buy the blood that he tells them his faith, and the woman would not be in danger then. Then alternative measures are planned down. If the hospital does not want to continue the treatment they say so and a Jehovah Witness friendly hospital is consulted. They took the family to the middle of the sea before starting to threaten their faith, the husbands refusal made them to neglect the woman. This is absurd. Though is our kind of country.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The doctor in question need to answer for the death of the woman because before it comes to the point of death he was supposed to have look for alternative instead of insisting on blood transfusion. Nowadays not only Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusion even though many doctors rejected it. Therefore the death of the woman was negligent of the doctors attended to her. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete

Post Bottom Ad