Jehovah's Witness mother dies after refusing blood transfusion after giving birth

[user79]

Quote:

A young mother died hours after giving birth to twins because her faith prohibited a life-saving blood transfusion. Emma Gough, 22, was able to hold her son and daughter after the natural delivery, but suffered a sudden haemorrhage and lost a great deal of blood. As a Jehovah's Witness, Mrs Gough had signed a form before the birth insisting that she should not be given blood. Staff at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital begged her husband Anthony, 24, who is also a Jehovah's Witness, and other relatives to allow the transfusion. But followers believe that blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible and the family would not sanction the treatment. rs Gough, a shop worker from Dawley, Telford, Shropshire, died early on October 25. The twins are being cared for by their father, who yesterday led the mourners at his wife's funeral. Mr Gough said: "We are coping the best we can. There will be an inquest and issues will arise from that." The couple married on the Caribbean island of Barbados in December 2005 in a ceremony attended by 30 family members and friends. At the time, Mrs Gough was a secretary working for her husband's gas fitting and plumbing business. Friends said the Goughs were teenage sweethearts and Emma had been "ecstatic" to learn she was expecting twins. ... The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital said it could not make any comment about an individual patient's care and treatment. • The Jehovah's Witness movement, an offshoot of Christianity, was developed by the American preacher Charles Taze Russell in the late 19th century. Its adherents believe Christ's second coming is imminent, and that soon afterwards the world will be destroyed and 144,000 of the most faithful believers will ascend to heaven. They consider the Bible to be the word of God - whom they call Jehovah - and interpret many of its scriptures literally. Witnesses believe three Biblical passages explicitly prevent them from receiving blood transfusions. However the faith's ruling Watchtower Society allows Witnesses to receive organ transplants, as long as the organ is completely drained of blood.

Read the full article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770



What are your thoughts on this?

Personally, I think it's a selfish act to deny the children the life of their mother due to this belief. In some countries, laws are in place that allow doctors to overrule such requests of the patients to save their lives.

 

[urbanlilyfairy]

I don't know what think ... I grew up in the Jehova's witness enviorment. My family was never devout ..my mother, brother and I were never baptizied in the religon ..but we did study with them and attended the kingdom hall weekly for year (kingdom hall =church) I don't ever recall an incident like this happening with anyone we knew but we did hear stories ...and many for the baptizied members carried around little cards in their wallets/purses that said basically no blood and was signed by them.

I think it is unfortuante that the mother passed. I don't have an opinon on whether it is wrong or not. I just feel sorry for their children and sadness for the familes loss.

 

[Shimmer]

Regardless of religious preferences, it should *never* be legal to perform medical procedures on someone who refuses them. Just because a doctor says so, regardless of what the procedure is, a patient should NOT be forced to go through it, provided the patient is of sound mind and mental faculty.
One could argue that refusing lifesaving treatment isn't of sound mind, but if refusal is made after being made aware of the consequences and understanding them completely, then...that's it.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think it's a selfish act to deny the children the life of their mother due to this belief. In some countries, laws are in place that allow doctors to overrule such requests of the patients to save their lives.

I think it's sad and pointless. The only way to give up this particular belief is for every JW to decide that they aren't going to follow this particular belief in order to be "right with God". Religions are littered with ideas that fall out of practice, and this seems to be one that is ripe for it.

I wonder how many people in her parish will now feel pressure to follow suit, should the choice be placed in front of them, or worse, in front of their children. I don't believe the parent should have the right to deny a life-saving blood transfusion to his or her child, if that child is under the age of majority. There are laws in some places (particularly in the States) enabling a physician to overrule a parent who is objecting on this basis, but it's very different, and probably wrong, to overrule an adult who is objecting for his or herself. Patients should always have the right to refuse treatments.

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Regardless of religious preferences, it should *never* be legal to perform medical procedures on someone who refuses them. Just because a doctor says so, regardless of what the procedure is, a patient should NOT be forced to go through it, provided the patient is of sound mind and mental faculty. One could argue that refusing lifesaving treatment isn't of sound mind, but if refusal is made after being made aware of the consequences and understanding them completely, then...that's it.

Yeah there are pros and cons. I don't think it's made use of very frequently in the countries where this law exists (I read about this in the newspaper this morning, can't remember which country they mentioned it was allowed in). But in some cases, it could be helpful. For example in this case. I think there was probably a huge amount of pressure on the woman and the family involved to adhere to the religion. If the doctor had taken that choice away from her, it would have saved the life of the woman and the burden would have fallen on the doctor, not the woman. In a way, it allows for patients to use the doctor as a "scapegoat" in the face of the religious members who would not agree with the decision to have the transfusion if it had been made by the woman. In the article I read today, they had an interview with a doctor who stated that he's been in similar situations where he overruled the patient, and in the end, the families have been quitely grateful that he saved the person's life.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous Yeah there are pros and cons. I don't think it's made use of very frequently in the countries where this law exists (I read about this in the newspaper this morning, can't remember which country they mentioned it was allowed in). But in some cases, it could be helpful. For example in this case. I think there was probably a huge amount of pressure on the woman and the family involved to adhere to the religion. If the doctor had taken that choice away from her, it would have saved the life of the woman and the burden would have fallen on the doctor, not the woman. In a way, it allows for patients to use the doctor as a "scapegoat" in the face of the religious members who would not agree with the decision to have the transfusion if it had been made by the woman. In the article I read today, they had an interview with a doctor who stated that he's been in similar situations where he overruled the patient, and in the end, the families have been quitely grateful that he saved the person's life.

I think most doctors would prefer not to be put in that situation in the first place, Hippocratic oaths aside... Anyway, most doctors in this highly litigious profession don't want to take a risk that the family will just be quietly grateful. They could have so easily been a family that was excommunicated from the Jehovah's Witness community, suing for malpractice, pain and suffering, etc.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous Yeah there are pros and cons. I don't think it's made use of very frequently in the countries where this law exists (I read about this in the newspaper this morning, can't remember which country they mentioned it was allowed in). But in some cases, it could be helpful. For example in this case. I think there was probably a huge amount of pressure on the woman and the family involved to adhere to the religion. If the doctor had taken that choice away from her, it would have saved the life of the woman and the burden would have fallen on the doctor, not the woman. In a way, it allows for patients to use the doctor as a "scapegoat" in the face of the religious members who would not agree with the decision to have the transfusion if it had been made by the woman. In the article I read today, they had an interview with a doctor who stated that he's been in similar situations where he overruled the patient, and in the end, the families have been quitely grateful that he saved the person's life.

That's what Personal Health Information is for.
The hospitals (here at least) are only permitted to release information to people the patients allow them to.
I can go to the hospital and not allow the doctors to release any information to my husband and family, regardless of their religious pressurings, or whatever.
The woman (if she were here) wouldn't have to tell them anything at all. There's no need for a doctor to be a 'scapegoat'.

 

[user79]

I do see that there are 2 sides, trust me. Patients should have a right to refuse medical aid if they don't want it.

But I do think that this story was a needless and preventable death. Those kids are going to grow up without a mother to care for, nurture, and love them. How is that doing this family any good at all? I cannot fathom how a religious belief would overrule a mother's desire to be there for and raise the kids she put into this world.

 

[SparklingWaves]

In most cases, it is called battery if a nurse or doctor carries out a procedure that the patient does not want. JW will allow blood expanders.

Let's say the doctor gave the blood and saved the woman, I quarantee she would sued him, the hospital, the staff and anyone else they could. Many people develop reactions to blood. It's extremely common. That would have been an additional reason to sue.

 

[SparklingWaves]

I have heard some JW's will except some blood components others say, "No, that's not right. We don't except any part of blood".

People have the legal right to refuse treatment. That's what this woman did here. She chose under her belief system to refuse current medical treatment that would have prevented her death. It's it right? It's what she chose to assert to do by her religous beliefs. She was willing to die for them. This is a common ethical problem that comes up with this belief system. If one of the believers come in with a child that has been in a car crash in the ER and needs blood immediately, it can't not be given without the full consent of the parents. The child's life is in the hands of the parents. They can refuse and the child will die.

 

[Shimmer]

No government entity or medical entity should be able to make the decision in the stead of a competent adult.

 

[SparklingWaves]

That's exactly correct. As long as the adult is competent to make a legal informed consent, this can not be challenged.

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparklingWaves I People have the legal right to refuse treatment. That's what this woman did here. She chose under her belief system to refuse current medical treatment that would have prevented her death. It's it right? It's what she chose to assert to do by her religous beliefs. She was willing to die for them. This is a common ethical problem that comes up with this belief system. If one of the believers come in with a child that has been in a car crash in the ER and needs blood immediately, it can't not be given without the full consent of the parents. The child's life is in the hands of the parents. They can refuse and the child will die.

I think, like someone has stated, there are laws that protect minors though. I'm not aware of the laws in the different states in the USA, but I think that is seriously screwed up if the parents can deny treatment to their child to save his or her life. It's one thing if an adult makes a decision about that for himself, but a child is not in the ability to make that choice for themselves. What if the child doesn't agree with the religion? It's ethically wrong to push the religion of the parents onto the child who cannot make a decision whether or not he or she believes and wants to adhere to those rules, especially in a life or death situation.

It's ethically wrong for a parent to deny life saving treatment for their child based on some questional belief system, imo.

What about the right of the child to live? Is that irrelevant?

 

[Shimmer]

The common problem becomes that people without any religious affiliation can't fathom a decision of that magnitude being made using the guidance and thought processes that go into it, and start calling into doubt the competence of the adult or the capacity to make the decision because of the religious leanings of the patient.

One doesn't lose rights by mere fact of being religious or spiritual. It's okay to disagree with them decision, and to not understand it, but just because it comes from a place others may not understand doesn't make it wrong. *shrug*

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous I think, like someone has stated, there are laws that protect minors though. I'm not aware of the laws in the different states in the USA, but I think that is seriously screwed up if the parents can deny treatment to their child to save his or her life. It's one thing if an adult makes a decision about that, but a child is not in the ability to make that choice for themselves. What if the child doesn't agree with the religion? It's ethically wrong to push the religion of the parents onto the child who cannot make a decision whether or not he or she believes and wants to adhere to those rules, especially in a life or death situation. It's ethically wrong for a parent to deny life saving treatment for their child based on some questional belief system, imo. What about the right of the child to live? Is that irrelevant?

Parents have the right to raise their child within whichever religion they choose. That's part of the rights guaranteed to us as United States citizens.

The government, and doctors, should *not* be able to override the parents and force them to acquiesce to a procedure for their child that they do not agree with and will ultimately have to pay for.
It's ethically wrong to completely dismiss someone's spiritual leanings simply because they're deemed unworthy.
And, calling someone's belief system questionable is essentially dismissing them and their intelligence.
YOU don't see it a certain way.
YOU don't believe in a higher power.
YOU wouldn't do it this way or that way because YOU don't believe in faith, God, spirituality, or a greater being or purpose.
YOU wouldn't.
YOU.


Not me.

Not them.


Not anyone else.
YOU.


YOU not agreeing with the decision is fine, questioning it is great, and something people should do, but insulting the intelligence and decision making process is out of bounds, IMO, because what YOU would do isn't necessarily right for anyone else.

 

[SparklingWaves]

By the time you try to get the court involved, the child is dead. When you are bleeding out, there is no time to run around with the court system and parent's belief systems. It's get this done NOW.

Some are very comfortable with that decision to die or to allow their child to perish. They feel they have followed their beliefs and are very at ease with the decision. It's actually harder for the staff, because they know this didn't have to happen.

 

[user79]

Well, in my opinion, the life of a human being is worth more than any religious practice. If a consenting adult wants to refuse a blood transfusion because of religious belief, so be it. I don't think it's a great decision, but that is their right. But a child has not had the opportunity to make that choice for himself. The parents make that decision for the child, whether the child is aware of the ramifications or not. The parents basically choose for the child to die. That's the issue here that I do not agree with.

That is why, in Australia (I just looked it up because I couldn't remember before) there are laws regarding this.

Quote:

In all Australian jurisdictions, there is legislation which permits particular forms of treatment for minors without parental consent[2]. In Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory blood transfusions may be given without parental consent if the child is in danger of death without the treatment[3]. In Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory two doctors must agree that it is impracticable to delay the transfusion as the child may die without it but in Western Australia and Queensland, it is sufficient that the blood transfusion is necessary to preserve the life of the child and no second opinion is required[4]. In the Northern Territory, the Emergency Medical Operations Act 1973 (NT): ss. 2 and 3 authorises an emergency operation (which includes a blood transfusion) on a child without parental consent if it is not reasonably practicable to delay the operation until parental consent is obtained and teo doctors believe that the patient is in danger of dying or of sufferring a serious permianent disability. In South Australia, the Consent to Medical and Dental Procedures Act 1985 (SA): ss. 6(2), (3), (5), (6) dispenses with the need for consent if the emergency procedure is required to meet an imminent risk to the life or health of the child although a second opinion should be taken unless this is not reasonably practicable. In New South Wales, the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 (NSW): s. 20A dispenses with the consent requirement if the treatment is necessary to save the life of the child or prevent serious damage to his/her health.

Basically, the factor here is at what age can you make your own choices? Obviously a child that is 2 or 3 years old can't make those decisions, and in such more extreme cases as Jehova witnesses, I think the state needs to step in and protect the life of the child, regardless of the parents' wishes. The child didn't choose that religion and its rules, it is thrust upon them, and they are too young to make that choice whether they want to live by them.


But anyway, getting back to the original story of this woman...do you think it's unfair to her children to grow up without a mother, who could have easily survived with a simple medical procedure?

 

[Shimmer]

Oh yay. Government. Being allowed to intervene. And tell parents how to raise their kids and what decisions to make regarding their welfare. Awesome. Go big brother!!!


Is it fair?
LIFE isn't fair. That's a ridiculous question.
It sucks. It's a major major sadness in their lives, but...I would be willing to bet, knowing the JWs I've known in my life (and I'm not a fan of that religion in the slightest), they're still going to have a strong family core around them.

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Oh yay. Government. Being allowed to intervene. And tell parents how to raise their kids and what decisions to make regarding their welfare. Awesome. Go big brother!!!

Well of course there need to be laws that allow the state to intervene in certain situations. It's called child welfare rights. It is every person's and child's right to be allowed to live, and I should hope, to also gain necessary medical access to preserve that life. Unfortunately in some developing countries, poor people do not yet have access to that. But, by the rationale you have just written, you would also be against laws protecting children from domestic violence, injury, rape or what have you, because it's "Big Brother" telling parents how to raise their kids?

 

[SparklingWaves]

I am not a JW, so I would have taken the transfusion and not signed any papers of that nature.

I don't think people ever imagine when they sign those consents, that things actually do happen - like death.

Blood transfusions do have risks, but this was a life or death situation.

In this woman's case, this was about life saving medical procedure. Gosh, I wouldn't want to abandon my child if I didn't have do.

For me, the decision would have been easy. Take the transfusion.

She died for her beliefs. I don't see it any other way. I can't really judge her. I really try to respect others beliefs. It's sad for the children to me. This is a difficult issue, because her beliefs affected a newborn.

OB was rough area. It's not all beautiful.