Klass99:


You see yourself? You are afraid of being turned on and beaten up, but what I said is a very likely scenario. You should voice it out and see what happens, you sef you quickly came to NL to blame her when there's a chance the man knew what was at stake but stuck with his beliefs.

We are here in luth .....you can come help voice it out.

Honestly I will pay your tfare...thanks.

Pecoleee345:

Yes......an abia indigene.
They are not taking it likely with her at all.....the whole thing sound ridiculous.

Non of her jehova witness is showing up.....they all left her now.

What a damned shame

Pecoleee345:

He was semi conscious so the doctor told the wife being the next of kin.......According to the nurses in the ward they said the guy came in unconscious from the theatre so there no way he could know about the blood thing.
He was operated Saturday night and he died around 2am this morning.

The husband family have gotten the police involved so they are questioning the nurses and doctors.....to be honest everyone is actually against the wife decision.

Grieving over the death of her husband, and now facing police matter again. This decision of hers will haunt her for the rest of her life.

Kobojunkiee:
Why would she have to consult those who are considered infidels by the JW cult standard in such thing when even the law does not mandate she communicate these things to them.

Lol @bolded..

Well that's to avoid the situation she is into at the moment.

There are laws but we have norms and traditions, in Nigeria laws are hardly obeyed or recognized. Moreover it is just the right thing to do, she doesn't own the Man. Same way her family would have held her husband responsible if the case was reserve.

Is he a JW member? Did he sign not to be tranfused blood? If he is and did sign not to be tranfused, the wife did no wrong. If he did not sign not to be transfused, she could be arraigned for murder.

One thing though, if people believe in science and its inventions in life, why say no to transfusion? Religion sometimes ehn...

Palema007:
Lol @bolded..

Well that's to avoid the situation she is into at the moment.

There are laws but we have norms and traditions, in Nigeria laws are hardly obeyed or recognized. Moreover it is just the right thing to do, she doesn't own the Man. Same way her family would have held her husband responsible if the case was reserve.

Apart from the law, right and wrong becomes subjective. Following her belief, she is probably convinced she is righteous in her decision. Throwing such things as tradition and norms at others only holds meaning if they also subscribe to the same set of norms and traditions that you do.

As for who owns the man, the man owned his own self...and he chose ti sign it away to the JW ideology.

This is indeed a sad situation but their isn't anything that can be done at this point. The woman was rightly her husband’s guardian by law and she choose to uphold their religious belief over whatever standard others may have or belief in. There is really nothing to that can be rightly done about that.

GboyegaD:
Is he a JW member? Did he sign not to be tranfused blood? If he is and did sign not to be tranfused, the wife did no wrong. If he did not sign not to be transfused, she could be arraigned for murder.

One thing though, if people believe in science and its inventions in life, why say no to transfusion? Religion sometimes ehn...

Bro is either you are police man or lawyer ooo.
We are all heading to the CMD office right now and this exactly what the ASP just said..
He is saying once she can't produce anywhere the husband signed not too be tranfused either by words or written then the family have a case.

Kobojunkiee:
Why would she have to consult those who are considered infidels by the JW cult standard in such thing when even the law does not mandate she communicate these things to them.

... Which law are you even talking about here?.
The man was unconscious and it fell on her to use her brains but alas,she failed.Any sensible person be you man or a woman should know that once any of the spouses falls sick and is in a very critical condition,the family has to be aware and help to take decesions inrespect to that.

Since she and her church members took such a bad decesion then let her face the consequences of her stupid religious action.

..

Kobojunkiee:
Apart from the law, right and wrong becomes subjective. Following her belief, she is probably convinced she is righteous in her decision. Throwing such things as tradition and norms at others only holds meaning if they also subscribe to the same set of norms and traditions that you do.

As for who owns the man, the man owned his own self...and he chose ti sign it away to the JW ideology.

This is indeed a sad situation but their isn't anything that can be done at this point. The woman was rightly her husband’s guardian by law and she choose to uphold their religious belief over whatever standard others may have or belief in. There is really nothing to that can be rightly done about that.

Lol...I wish all you have typed and your opinion can really solve the situation on ground. If not,then my stand remains. She should have carried her husband's family along!

That is the truth and logical thing to do.

Palema007:
Lol...I wish all you have typed and your opinion can really solve the situation on ground. If not,then my stand remains. She should have carried her husband's family along!

That is the truth and logical thing to do.

Solve ke? Someone died...nothing can solve that at all.

Palema007:
Lol @bolded..

Well that's to avoid the situation she is into at the moment.

There are laws but we have norms and traditions, in Nigeria laws are hardly obeyed or recognized. Moreover it is just the right thing to do, she doesn't own the Man. Same way her family would have held her husband responsible if the case was reserve.

.. That's it.. Anytime my wife falls sick and needed to be admitted,the first thing I do is to get her family involved. Same too for me.
These things are just common sense.

JONNYSPUTE:
... Which law are you even talking about here?.
The man was unconscious and it fell on her to use her brains but alas,she failed.Any sensible person be you man or a woman should know that once any of the spouses falls sick and is in a very critical condition,the family has to be aware and help to take decesions inrespect to that.

Since she and her church members took such a bad decesion then let her face the consequences of her stupid religious action.

Even in Nigeria, the law defines marriage in similar terms as a man leaving his father and mother to become one with his wife... she becomes his defacto family and guardian where he also hers.

Unless this man had listed his mother and father or any others as his guardians, his wife is it. And I seriously doubt he could have since he was JW.

Kobojunkiee:
Even in Nigeria, marriage is defined in similar terms as a man leaving his father and mother to become one with his wife... she becomes his defacto family and guardian where he also hers.

... Trash. Oya go to the police station and save her with your law.

Kobojunkiee:
Solve ke? Someone died...nothing can solve that at all.

Lol.... If only your previous claims can avert the family from tearing the woman apart (figuratively) will I agree to it and encourage women to. But since everything in your previous post holds no water with reality, I wouldn't advise any one to think or act on it.


May God give the woman strength and muscle to bear what's on her and still coming. It's one thing to be a believer, it's another thing to be a religious fanatic. Even pastors dey wise up these days.

Kobojunkiee:
Even in Nigeria, the law defines marriage in similar terms as a man leaving his father and mother to become one with his wife... she becomes his defacto family and guardian where he also hers.

Unless this man had listed his mother and father or any others as his guardians, his wife is it. And I seriously doubt he could have since he was JW.

... Slow down a bit Kobo.It doesn't work that way. If she could see reasons by informing her church members that her husband was sick. Why can't she also see the same reason to inform the man's family that he was sick? Or did the man listed his church members as his guardian.?

thesicilian:

Ok
There's enough blame to go round, actually.
The wife takes blame for prioritizing religious beliefs over evidence based medicine.

The husband also takes the blame, because by signing up to become a JW, he invariably agreed to all their terms and conditions including no blood transfusion even for life saving conditions. The wife was only following his example.

The doctor also has some part of the blood, for agreeing to do the surgery knowing the strong stand of JWs against blood transfusion and not providing alternative measures.

Lie. That in a Catholic doesn't mean I agree not to eat meat during Ash Wednesday or good Friday.

Palema007:
Lol.... If only your previous claims can avert the family from tearing the woman apart (figuratively) will I agree to it and encourage women to. But since everything in your previous post holds no water with reality, I wouldn't advise any one to think or act on it.

May God give the woman strength and muscle to bear what's on her and still coming. It's one thing to be a believer, it's another thing to be a religious fanatic. Even pastors dey wise up these days.

That is why I said earlier that I hope justice, not jungle justice, prevail in this case.

Them tearing her apart does not put them in the right same way setting a teenager on fire for suspected robbery does not put his lynchers in the right. Jungle justice is never the answer, no matter the situation.

thesicilian:

Ok
There's enough blame to go round, actually.
The wife takes blame for prioritizing religious beliefs over evidence based medicine.

The husband also takes the blame, because by signing up to become a JW, he invariably agreed to all their terms and conditions including no blood transfusion even for life saving conditions. The wife was only following his example.

The doctor also has some part of the blood, for agreeing to do the surgery knowing the strong stand of JWs against blood transfusion and not providing alternative measures.

Lie. That I'm a Catholic doesn't mean I agree not to eat meat during Ash Wednesday or good Friday.

Kellzzyy:

Lie. That I'm a Catholic doesn't mean I agree not to eat meat during Ash Wednesday or good Friday.

ROFLMAO


Please dont compare the JW cult to the Catholic party people abeg!. The JWs are actually known to stick to every inch of their doctrine unlike you Catholics seem able to.

JONNYSPUTE:
... Slow down a bit Kobo.It doesn't work that way.

I am afraid it does.

JONNYSPUTE:
.. That's it.. Anytime my wife falls sick and needed to be admitted,the first I do is to get her family involved. Same too for me.
These things are just common sense.

Abi... Lol.. Maximum days a spouse should spend in the hospital without his or her family's knowledge for me is two days. Anything more, put a call through. ( My opinion oooo)

For we only marry in part

Kellzzyy:

Lie. That I'm a Catholic doesn't mean I agree not to eat meat during Ash Wednesday or good Friday.

Buhahahahahhahaa!!!

Kobojunkiee:
That is why I said earlier that I hope justice, not jungle justice, prevail in this case.

Them tearing her apart does not put them in the right same way setting a teenager on fire for suspected robbery does not put his lynchers in the right. Jungle justice is never the answer, no matter the situation.

Lol... lawfully she may be vindicated but what about life outside court?

I wish life is that simple and people play by books. For future sake and to avoid similar situation, it is advisable to inform the family. Very Simple.

Palema007:
Lol... lawfully she may be vindicated but what about life outside court?

I wish life is that simple and people play by books. For future sake and to avoid similar situation, it is advisable to inform the family. Very Simple.

You need to read up a bit more on the beliefs of others, even these JW folks, to understand how ridiculous your stipulations here may sound to them. We don't all define these things the same way abeg.

You talk of life outside of court, well, to this woman and her dead husband, so long as her JW family see her as haven done the right thing, that may all that matters.

Palema007:
Abi... Lol.. Maximum days a spouse should spend in the hospital without his or her family's knowledge for me is two days. Anything more, put a call through. ( My opinion oooo)

For we only marry in part

... I don't even wait for 2 days. Immediately I hear something like. You will be admitted. Fiam,I don put my call to her parents.

Same thing she does if I'm the one.

Kobojunkiee:
You need to read up a bit more on the beliefs of others, even these JW folks, to understand how ridiculous your stipulations here may sound to them. We don't all define these things the same way abeg.

You talk of life outside of court, well, to this woman and her dead husband, so long as her JW family see her as haven done the right thing, that may all that matters.

Now you sound like a sour member of "cult" not that I hold much for a group of people with absurd beliefs and practices. But you must be delusional to think the world revolves around JW group or that every other person will agree to unreasonable thought processes.

As the defender of JW you are, gather your likes to go help the woman out.

thesicilian:

Ok
There's enough blame to go round, actually.
The wife takes blame for prioritizing religious beliefs over evidence based medicine.

The husband also takes the blame, because by signing up to become a JW, he invariably agreed to all their terms and conditions including no blood transfusion even for life saving conditions. The wife was only following his example.

The doctor also has some part of the blood, for agreeing to do the surgery knowing the strong stand of JWs against blood transfusion and not providing alternative measures.

The Husband has no blame on this given he was not in a state to give an informed consent regarding his health after the surgery.

This put the physician in an extremely problematic situation: failure to act may lead to criminal charges of negligence or even, should the patient die, of culpable homicide; intervention, on the other hand, could lead to criminal charges of trespass against physical integrity or to claims for damages by the patient for violation of the right to self-determination.

However, how then do we deal with a situation where the non-intervention by a doctor leads to patient death? Therefore I agree with you that the wife and doctor are culpable. The consent form signed be the wife does not excuse the doctor. This is because although ethical/moral indications (such as the examples just described) would seem to consider a patient’s dissent an insurmountable obstacle, in clinical practice and in emergency situations where the patient is unconscious, the prevailing interpretation is that intervention (in the case in point, a blood transfusion) is not only legitimate but right and proper

I listed the below to widen our perspective with regard to case in point.

[quote]
Three trends in Italian legal doctrine and case-law

The first school of thought considers informed consent as protecting an absolute right to self-determination17. Accordingly, the right to refuse treatment is above question, even when it places the patient’s life at risk.

The second holds that when the patient is unconscious and his or her physical integrity is in serious and immediate danger the physician has a duty to intervene and to give a transfusion, and that this cannot constitute grounds either for claims of liability or for charges of trespass against physical integrity.

This approach is based mainly on the “state of necessity”18 (see below) that limits the patient’s consent: the right to self-determination is limited in favour of the inalienable good that is life. This approach appears to prevail in both legal doctrine and case law, as demonstrated in the ruling described below.

A third approach holds that the “state of necessity” is applicable even when the patient is fully able to comprehend and express him or herself, if the refusal of treatment would imply a risk of death or serious harm. This is argued by invoking variously: the legal obligations of health workers; the conception of life as an inalienable good19; professional ethics (see, for example, the section headed “Duties of physicians to patients” in the International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association20).

The third position is favoured by French case law. As an example, the case in France of a young Jehovah’s Witness who suffered a serious post-partum haemorrhage received wide attention: the woman was given a transfusion of four units of blood against her will. In giving judgement, the Administrative Court of Lille noted that the Public Health Code states that no medical intervention can be performed without the consent of the patient21, but also recognised that it was the physicians’ duty not to respect the patient’s will when her life was in imminent danger22.

Thus although ethical/moral indications (such as the examples just described) would seem to consider a patient’s dissent an insurmountable obstacle, in clinical practice and in emergency situations where the patient is unconscious, the prevailing interpretation is that intervention (in the case in point, a blood transfusion) is not only legitimate but right and proper.[/quote]

Palema007:
Now you sound like a sore member of "cult" not that I hold much for a group of people with absurd beliefs and practices. But you must be delusional to think the world revolves around JW group or that every other person will agree to unreasonable thought processes.

As the defender of JW you are, gather your likes to go help the woman out.

I am afraid you have it twisted. I am not a defender of JWs, but instead one who defends an individual's right to believe as he or she sees fit, as long as it is not run counter to commonsense.

Not everyone out there holds high what you consider your norms and traditions. We shouldn't all adopt the same beliefs.

Well knowing how strong Jehovah witnesses hold their doctrine I really don't blame the wife for the decision.

If her husband was not a witness like herself It's a different case entirely.

She should have informed them but she knows the parents ( who most likely are not witnesses) would not agree and they would sign for him to be transfused and she and her husband even in his unconscious state wouldn't want that.

She knows the stand of her husband on transfusion matter so she took the decision for him.

The man might even get transfused, get better and become bitter with her, we don't know how hard they (this couple) take their doctrine
I have seen one that said they would rather die than get transfused.

The downside now is she gets to take the blame for everything.

I heard of a case where a baby was transfused against the parents wish and the hospital won in court, maybe because the baby was a minor and couldn't decide himself, Possibly hospitals should take such decisions on adults too.

I believe she followed the wishes of her husband. They can't blame her for that, their son was a witness and held such beliefs.

How on earth didn't the doctors know their stand on transfusion before the surgery maybe it was emergency surgery?

It's a sad matter.

Klass99:


Yeye dey worry you sha

... Lol. You dey fear to fight?