aribisala0:


No it is not madness, it is jurisprudence. Not always comprehensible to simple folk.

Sometimes better to observe in silence

Yimu

anonymuz:
its a basic bible principle.

That we should not eat animals with their blood.

ImaIma1:


That is always their argument. Are they praying or hoping that their child would contact any of these? What is the ratio of those that contact them through blood to the ones that don't?

In this case, did the child contact any?

The child was very fortunate. Doesn't in any way make this practice any less barbaric in 2019 where there are alternatives to explore.

When blood transfusion came about, the health care system was a little advanced already. But lets assume it wasn't even till now...would you agree to drink up a bowl of another person's blood sip by sip to save your life?

helpee:
lies. Supreme Court judgement can be interpreted anyhow by court. This is just a judicial precedence meaning it can only help your case if you are in court for a similar case but it won't prevent you from being sued. And remember, Jehovah witness is a stubborn set. Even if the case is straight forward, they will still take you to court for transfusing their sect members and will still pursue the case to the supreme Court. Wether you win or not is Immaterial, the stress, the money and the time and the emotional trauma that you will pass through will be too much . Moreso, remember the baby didn't die yet they took them to court. Imagine after transfusion the baby still dies.... creating another scenario. They will now say even with the blood the baby died.... meaning the blood was not necessarily what would save the baby etc. There are too many scenarios in law and medical practice, a doctor should play safe and smart so they won't use you as a scapegoat

I guess they should stubbornly build their own hospitals and employ JW doctors, nurses, staff...so that they won't keep suing for suing sake

koyyes:


The child was very fortunate. Doesn't in any way make this practice any less barbaric in 2019 where there are alternatives to explore.

When blood transfusion came about, the health care system was a little advanced already. But lets assume it wasn't even till now...would you agree to drink up a bowl of another person's blood sip by sip to save your life?

What makes it barbaric? Are the alternatives readily available in Nigeria? Does it now justify letting the child die?

The JW can afford lengthy court cases. Why don't they invest that money into building hospitals and employing JW staff. That way they can practise their beliefs

ImaIma1:



What makes it barbaric? Are the alternatives readily available in Nigeria? Does it now justify letting the child die?

The JW can afford lengthy court cases. Why don't they invest that money into building hospitals and employing JW staff. That way they can practise their beliefs

I don't know how you can talk about a group of relatively smaller number of people and sideline where we as a whole ought to be in terms of technological advancement that can make all these a non issue.

Come on.

koyyes:


I don't know how you can talk about a group of relatively smaller number of people and sideline where we as a whole ought to be in terms of technological advancement that can make all these a non issue.

Come on.

They have chosen their beliefs and it puts the life of an innocent child in the mix. It's good as the supreme court has taken this decision. That is what matters to me.

Know These Beauty Tips
http://exclusivenewsreport.com/beauty-tips/

ImaIma1:


I guess they should stubbornly build their own hospitals and employ JW doctors, nurses, staff...so that they won't keep suing for suing sake

There is a well celebrated case that happened to a Jehovah witness doctor in ikeja. A woman needed transfusion. An adult. She refused since she was a Jehovah's witness. The first doctor who is not a witness referred. The husband now took her to a Jehovah's witness doctor. Being a member of their sect, he agreed not to tranfuse and the woman died. Now the siblings of the woman(not the husband) now sued the Jehovah's witness doctor that HE DIDNT TRANSFUSE NOT BECAUSE THE WOMAN IS A WITNESS BUT BECAUSE THE DOCTOR IS A WITNESS THEREFORE USING HIS FAITH TO KILL THE WOMAN. The argument was, if the doctor had not been a witness, he wouldn't have agreed not to transfuse if so his faith rather than the faith of the patient was the determining factor. Medical council revoked the license of the doctor. He went to appeal court. It was upheld. He later went to supreme Court where it was held that since the woman had earlier rejected the transfusion with a doctor that was not a witness, she would have rejected it with a doctor of her faith too had it been the Jehovah's witness doctor offered it too. The mistake the Jehovah's witness doctor made was that...being a witness...HE DIDNT GET A WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THEM THAT HE OFFERED THEM BLOOD BUT THEY REFUSED so there was no evidence he offered them. So it was believed that despite knowing the patient needed, he refused to offer them since HE WAS A WITNESS NOT BECAUSE THE PATIENT WAS A WITNESS. Bottom line is this, a doctor must be experienced in dealing with these people. Some of them will beg you behind that doctor, once my Jehovah's family leave, give my wife blood but don't let anyone know. Just make him sign and carry on

helpee:
There is a well celebrated case that happened to a Jehovah witness doctor in ikeja. A woman needed transfusion. An adult. She refused since she was a Jehovah's witness. The first doctor who is not a witness referred. The husband now took her to a Jehovah's witness doctor. Being a member of their sect, he agreed not to tranfuse and the woman died. Now the siblings of the woman(not the husband) now sued the Jehovah's witness doctor that HE DIDNT TRANSFUSE NOT BECAUSE THE WOMAN IS A WITNESS BUT BECAUSE THE DOCTOR IS A WITNESS THEREFORE USING HIS FAITH TO KILL THE WOMAN. The argument was, if the doctor had not been a witness, he wouldn't have agreed not to transfuse if so his faith rather than the faith of the patient was the determining factor. Medical council revoked the license of the doctor. He went to appeal court. It was upheld. He later went to supreme Court where it was held that since the woman had earlier rejected the transfusion with a doctor that was not a witness, she would have rejected it with a doctor of her faith too had it been the Jehovah's witness doctor offered it too. The mistake the Jehovah's witness doctor made was that...being a witness...HE DIDNT GET A WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THEM THAT HE OFFERED THEM BLOOD BUT THEY REFUSED so there was no evidence he offered them. So it was believed that despite knowing the patient needed, he refused to offer them since HE WAS A WITNESS NOT BECAUSE THE PATIENT WAS A WITNESS. Bottom line is this, a doctor must be experienced in dealing with these people. Some of them will beg you behind that doctor, once my Jehovah's family leave, give my wife blood but don't let anyone know. Just make him sign and carry on

The case was already a lost case because she herself rejected it and she is a adult. Her family going to court was a waste of time and resources.

ImaIma1:


The case was already a lost case because she herself rejected it and she is a adult. Her family going to court was a waste of time and resources.

you didn't read well. The doctor lost his license until supreme Court ruled in his favour. Search for the case on the internet. Lawyers can twist case for you.

helpee:
you didn't read well. The doctor lost his license until supreme Court ruled in his favour. Search for the case on the internet. Lawyers can twist case for you.

Hmmm I see

ImaIma1:


Yimu

Ni iwo ti imu re fe ju enu lo.
O tun lo yimu?

aribisala0:

Ni iwo ti imu re fe ju enu lo.
O tun lo yimu?

Asanga die diongo ke iwo mmi a kpon akan inua mmi?