Hahaha funny people make una save una energy , even this matter have millions reference worldwide but the same ending. Stop antagonising the woman lolz the man would do same if reversed. This people have a a full consent card to that decision. Anybody around them at that period is just there to protect that Decision . Please see below the source https://www.ajwrb.org/watchtower-no-blood-card. Soo if you still blame that woman you are more wicked. Argumentors please I'm off

Pecoleee345:

The husband too is also a jehova witness but he didn't take the decision clearly cause he was semi conscious.

THIS CAN'T BE TRUE.... Get your fact right Peco.... You don't judge cases on sentiment or being emotional. If you dig deep to the matter there will definitely be a standing order from the husband on this matter.... You only conclude on what you hear or sees. We all have a our beliefs... its personal.... I have seen someone who took a blood transfusion and still died. Its not about accepting the transfusion or not. Its about holding to your faith and belief no matter what..... Those who are afraid of death are those that their life is full of regrets.


Death is not something so big that ends everything.... what ends everything is your disobedience to God's law even out of fear.

The power or resurrection is in God's hand not in blood or in a man's hand.


Doctor don't safe lives they only push the death timing forward.

Donphilex:


No judge would go against a person’s signed wishes the only thing the hospital could do is to reject and refuse treatment then you move to a more willing hospital

I said sane societies and judge's have overuled many cases ...........

Enter Google and fill that void . . ......

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

So will she be the only one to bury him. Won't the husband's family be involved?

Ilaje1:
You are very unreasonable. This was life and death situation, you think the wife was the only that had to decide if someone's son, bro, uncle should live or not?

You think the wife didn't know the in-laws would have definitely given an OK to the transfusion?

The decisions this couples took, shows there respect to life and also shows how they humbly followed the admonition recorded in Act 15 v 20, 29. To the Christians here you may check that verses and see what should be our view when it come to blood transfusion.

For the doubtful chance that one might be kept alive for a few more years in this system of things, would it make good sense to turn one’s back on God by breaking his law? If we try to save our life, or soul, by breaking God’s law, we will lose it everlastingly. That is why Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) So the wise course is always to have confidence in the rightness of God’s law and full faith that, if need be, God can give us life again by a resurrection in his new system of things. (1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14) In that way we will show godly respect for life. We will not view our present life as being more precious than loyalty to God. Instead, we will keep our eye on God’s provision of eternal life for those who walk in the way of the truth.

sapientia:
Anytime she remembers him

What thing will pop up in her brain
"I killed my husband"

More like " I was righteous in my decision".

UMUAZEE:


If it was Europe she will go to jail for murder.. being a wife doesn't give you the right to deny him his chance to live.

She committed no crime. It was her husband's decision not to be transfused

Lexusgs430:



Power of Attorney.......

Is there a power of attorney legislation in Nigeria and does it cover health decisions?

Britishpea:


What are you talking about There is no law that places spouse over family in case of healthcare decisions, on their spouses. Some medical facilities can only decide to lift the spouse a step ahead of the family in hierarchy but no law stipulates that. Family only respects the tradition of marriages in terms of such decisions. Yes a wife or husband can take whatever decision by him/herself and no one can castigate her or him for doing same way no law can castigate family’ if they do same.

Spouse is the number one family. What are you talking about?
You think one’s mom, dad or sibling will outrank the spouse in medical decisions?
That’s why you need to marry someone that likes you

DrFunmisticGlow:
Jehovah witnesses usually have a form telling doctors not to transfuse them. Did the husband have such a form?!

He was referred and I think to procedure was to stabilise him before major surgery.....she was meant to the make the blood available when he getvto the ward.....so it was at that point they got to know about the whole jw thing........I don't know how this handle in the hospital but I think over here is the relative that get blood for there patients.

Pecoleee345:

The doctors had no fault oooo.....it was after the surgery they found out he is a JW infact they said if they knew earlier they won't have done the surgery...The top consultant that did the surgery was really angry.

A doctor is meant to save life. Some doctors would have gone ahead, you can sue them later. There's a case like that in USA. The doctor's argument is that it's against her ethics not to save a life.

Kobojunkiee:
1. What do you mean by blaming the wife? The husband was also a Jehovah's witness, and by the way, nowhere in the OP are you told that the husband was not conscious when his wife signed the papers in question. She most likely signed the documents as his guardian right before he was taken in and operated on.

2. They both made their choice to join the cult and so the parents, while they grieve, ought to understand that these folks chose this for themselves.

3. That one na lie abeg!

Jehovah's Witnesses make a personal decision on blood transfusion. The woman is completely excused from that decision because the man signed a durable power of attorney. That supersedes any decision to be made by anyone.

We should learn to have principles in life because if you don't stand for something you'll fall for everything.

Codeye:
Just by going to hospital means she initial agreed to all the practices there, hence, she backslide when it comes to blood transfusion stating religious reasons. For that the woman is guilty as charged

simple! but why are people also avoiding blaming the doctor?

aribisala0:
What is "next of kin" ? Is that a legal concept

*THE MEANING OF "NEXT OF KIN"*
By: B.C OBILOR Esq., Dip (Law), LL.B (HONS), BL
The term “NEXT OF KIN ” simpliciter, does not confer the right of inheritance on the person so named. If so, of what use is the term?"
INTRODUCTION
The meaning & the legal implication of the term “NEXT OF KIN ” have been constantly misunderstood by the ordinary public. It appears, though erroneously, that many people think that once you are appointed the NEXT OF KIN OF A PERSON, it automatically gives you the right to inherit the person’s estate upon his demise. In fact, many people think that, a NEXT OF KIN gives an exclusive right over a person’s property. The above erroneous belief and understanding of the term NEXT OF KIN has made many people to shy away from the need to make a Will. This is because, they think appointing a NEXT OF KIN, is a way of naming your beneficiary.
However, the above assumption is not in conformity with the law.
It must be noted that, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
WHAT THEN IS THE MEANING OF THE TERM “NEXT OF KIN”?
The term, NEXT OF KIN has been described as the nearest blood relative of a person.
See JOSEPH v FAJEMILEHIN O.O & Anor (2012) LPELR-9849(CA).
The term can also refer to a person who can be contacted or notified in cases of emergencies or eventualities. For instance, one of the forms that is usually filled while on transit, requires the information of NEXT OF KIN. This is needed in case of any accident. In other words, where there is an accident involving that person, his NEXT OF KIN shall be notified or informed. Also, the term is constantly put into use by hospitals. In this case, NEXT OF KIN means a person who can make medical decisions for a person who is incapacitated or unable to do so, during emergencies. The term is also frequently used in financial documents by banks and other financial institutions. In this instance, NEXT OF KIN means a person who can ensure that the proper steps are taken towards the recovery of the money held at the bank, at the demise of the owner. In other words, being a NEXT OF KIN of a person, as regards his money in the bank, does not give a right to inherit such money, either partly or as a whole.
WHAT IS THE LEGAL IMPLICATION OF THE TERM NEXT OF KIN AS IT RELATES TO THE LAW OF SUCCESSION? It must be noted that appointment of a NEXT OF KIN is not a substitute to the making of a valid WILL. The reason is because, when a person dies testate (that is, the person made a valid Will), the matter of NEXT OF KIN is of no relevance. The estate of a deceased person who dies testate is distributed strictly according to the Will. Thus, his NEXT OF KIN will only be entiled to his estate, if the WILL says so. On the other hand, in a situation where the deceased died intestate (that is, without making a valid Will), the question of the distribution of his estate is governed by the law. The customary law/Islamic law or the Administration of Estate Law will apply depending on the kind of marriage contracted by the deceased. In other words, if the deceased contracted a statutory marriage (popularly known as court marriage), the distribution of his estate shall be governed by either the English Law or the Administration of Estate Law. See OBUZEZ V OBUZEZ (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 430.
It must be noted that the Administration of Estate Law provides for the order of inheritance which must be complied with strictly & a NEXT OF KIN, is not among the categories of those entitled to inheritance in this instance.
In other words, SUCCESSION IS REGULATED BY LAW. It is only those entitled by law to inherit a deceased person’s estate that can do so. A NEXT OF KIN is not one of such persons. However, this is without prejudice to his right to inherit on a personal ground. Thus, if the person so named as a NEXT OF KIN is the son of the deceased, he is entitled to inherit, not as a NEXT OF KIN, but because he is the legitimate son of the deceased. Also, if the person so named as a NEXT OF KIN, is also named in a valid Will made by the deceased, he is entitled to an inheritance not because he is a NEXT OF KIN, rather, because, he is named in the WILL.
*CONCLUSION*
A NEXT OF KIN, WHO IS USUALLY A BLOOD RELATIVE, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT OF INHERITANCE by virtue of his status as a NEXT OF KIN simpliciter. However, it must be noted that the appointment of a NEXT OF KIN IS NOT A MEANS OR METHOD OF NAMING AN HEIR.
A NEXT OF KIN IS NOT RECOGNISED AS AN HEIR UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW OF SUCCESSION.
Therefore, NEXT OF KIN, _STRICTO SENSU,_ does not by any stretch of imagination, entitle the person so named an automatic right of inheritance. If the person so named as a NEXT OF KIN is not entitled either by the WILL or by other laws of inheritance, to inherit, he cannot be conferred with the right of inheritance by the mere fact that he is named as a NEXT OF KIN.
It is hereby submitted that when it comes to the law of succession, the term NEXT OF KIN HAS NO LEGAL IMPLICATION.
It therefore does not confer the right of inheritance Thus, it is erroneous & unlawful for anyone to claim any inheritance on the singularly reason that he is named as a NEXT OF KIN.
Such claims have no legal basis and are unfounded.
COPIED!!!!!

Pecoleee345:
Should A Wife Be Allowed To Take A Big Decision Without Informing Her In-law?

Good afternoon everybody.i will make this short as possible.

A friend of mine just died in luth (cause of that was anemia). He was operated upon and they told his wife to get blood (2 r.o) for transfusion after the procedure but due to being a jehova witness she decided not to get the blood (jehova witness don't take blood,is against there faith).

She had a back and forth about the blood with the doctors and was asked to sign incase anything happen which she sign without the husband family knowledge....it was only her and her fellow jehova witness that took the decision.

He passed away this midnight, she called her in-law to inform them and I also got the information from the deceased younger brother.

On getting here the family found out the surgery was successful but he died of anemia, the doctors told them it was the wife decision not to get him blood against there prescriptions and infact she signed taking responsibility if anything happens.

A serious fight is happening here, the family are claiming she killed there son which I totally agree to as well.

So this my question, should a wife be allowed to take such a big decision without informing the husband family first.

Note; it was her in-laws that were paying the hospital bills.

That was how my aunt's husband allowed my aunt to die, giving stupid excuse that dialysis was not allowed.

maxindhouSe always parading religion section come explain this

UMUAZEE:


If it was Europe she will go to jail for murder.. being a wife doesn't give you the right to deny him his chance to live.

Which Europe Ukraine or Russia? Murder? And what about the doctors were they obliged to obey her? In the UK there is a Court of Protection that deals with such matters and doctors can approach the Court for such decisions. It sits everyday if required.
People can talk rubbish sha

Treadway:
Many have echoed your conclusion here, but it is not entirely correct. If the family really wants to take her up, she is in serious trouble. The point/fact is how does she PROVE that the husband consented to her not allowing transfusion under any cirscumstance? The laws of the country tho shambolic is still weightier than any gaddem doctrine, and I can tell you not all jw follow all the rules all the time. She is in soup, unless she is lucky to escape the wrath of her in-laws somehow. If it was someone who wasn't of age eg their child, that can hold water, but for a full grown man she would have to prove explicitly that he was on board with the plan, but she can't cos he is dead as a door nail

Modified: I just saw you used the word 'probably', which def suffices

The fact that he was a Jehovah's Witness at the time of his death is all the PROOF anyone needs if at all needed. A Jehovah’s Witness who wants transfusion is an exception

If these people can't be banned outright like Putin did, there should be a law taking away their right to decide on medical issues.

aribisala0:
Is there a power of attorney legislation in Nigeria and does it cover health decisions?

Now you know. ...... Knowledge is POWER. .......

JONNYSPUTE:
... This is exactly where we are missing it here.
If not that your family was aware,your sister would have gone.
Now I asked. Why didn't she inform the husband's family that he was sick? Pride,ego,malice,hatred. Smh.
It is a no. She has no right to take such decesions without coming into agreement with the husband's family. Period.

Hahaha funny people make una save una energy , even this matter have millions reference worldwide but the same ending. Stop antagonising the woman lolz the man would do same if reversed. This people have a a full consent card to that decision. Anybody around them at that period is just there to protect that Decision . Please see below the source https://www.ajwrb.org/watchtower-no-blood-card. Soo if you still blame that woman you are more wicked. Argumentors please I'm off

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

Your head is peppering U
Ori n ta e
God forbid but no one should try this nonsense with any members of my family
I go tear that person apart
even the pastor self go hear am

descartes400:


simple! but why are people also avoiding blaming the doctor?

the doctor is not at fault really.

DarkJeddi:
You think the loved ones of a relative shouldn't have a say in his well being?
Yet they are the ones picking up the tab?
What are they already doing?

This isn't about what I think but about the JW belief system, so first try to understand that.

The man and his wife were JWs, and so must have had the conversation at some point with each other. The man's family, infidels, would ofcourse not have agreed with his choice, but it is his choice to make anyways.

Assuming the man said no blood transfusion and his wife only carried out what amounts to the man's will, what can anyone do about that?

Ilaje1:


A doctor is meant to save life. Some doctors would have gone ahead, you can sue them later. There's a case like that in USA. The doctor's argument is that it's against her ethics not to save a life.

Here you can lose your medical license for going against patient wishes. If they say they don’t want it, you can’t force it. Medical autonomy comes first before anything else. Unless the patient is deemed cognitively incompetent to make medical decisions

cococandy:


Spouse is the number one family. What are you talking about?
You think one’s mom, dad or sibling will outrank the spouse in medical decisions?
That’s why you need to marry someone that likes you

You just want to argue. I said no law places anyone over other(either spouse or family where the the person came from). We are talking about law here- context. No argument about who takes charge. It is purely law analysis.

clericuzzio:
So will she be the only one to bury him. Won't the husband's family be involved?

Who knows?

Lexusgs430:



Now you know. ...... Knowledge is POWER. .......

Is there such legislation in Nigeria and does it cover health decisions ?

You did not answer the question

aribisala0:
Which Europe Ukraine or Russia? Murder? And what about the doctors were they obliged to obey her? In the UK there is a Court of Protection that deals with such matters and doctors can approach the Court for such decisions. It sits everyday if required.
People can talk rubbish sha

Stop antagonising the woman lolz the man would do same if reversed. This people have a a full consent card to that decision. Anybody around them at that period is just there to protect that Decision . Please see below the source https://www.ajwrb.org/watchtower-no-blood-card. Soo if you still blame that woman you are more wicked.

Freddonance:


She committed no crime. It was her husband's decision not to be transfused

Where did you read that? The story doesn't say it was her husband's decision. It was her decision to let her husband die.