I hope you will keep this same energy, when your love one dies, due to a decision made by thier spouse

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.

Be ye not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. The man was yoked to his wife.... both Jehovah Witnesses ... both believe in not receiving blood. Why can't the family respect that? Did the husband request blood?... And the two shall become one..... the family can only advise.... it's for the wife to decide. With those butchers and money hungry vampires at LUTH posing as professional doctors the family need to investigate if the operation was necessary and if it was indeed successful. I wouldn't be surprised if they went in to snatch a kidney.

Kobojunkiee:
You mean all Jehovah's witnesses sign these?

Yes, they sign DPAs on health decisions and procedures.

Non JWs also sign DPAs

What this exposes is a gap(lacuna) in our legislation

and also Medical Law

The story does not tell us whether or not the Man was conscious or able to express his wishes.

We are told that the woman DID NOT PROCURE blood as instructed

So we can see that there are many layers of decision making.

Sometimes a patient may not have the capacity to express their wish /consent refusal and someone else has to make that decision for them

That could be the doctors if there is no Family and sometimes there may be disagreement among family members or between family on one side and doctors on the other

Often Time is of the essence and decisions need to be made quickly using "in the best Interest" doctrine

There is also the concept of a "living will" or advance directive in which the donor puts in writing his wishes e.g When I die cremate my body or if I am unwell DO NOT transfuse

Virtually all these scenarios have resulted in one court case or another so the Jurisprudence is rich

UMUAZEE:
I have not done any major surgery that requires me signing documents.. however focusing on the topic of this woman, doctors here will not need permission to give blood for a sugery they are already performing.

And if anybody denies someone their rights to life because of religious beliefs or personal beliefs that person is going to jail..
Here no be like Nigeria where una carry religion for head and pastors get rich on your destinies..

See attached link is an example consent form for blood transfusion used at UCLA.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.uclahealth.org/neurosurgery/Workfiles/Site-Neurosurgery/Blood-Consent.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj638uz2Mj2AhVSKH0KHacKDEMQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1IhMFz0zrZe-xJHMq8QC-g

There are consent forms for almost everything .

evy800:


I'm curious...how did it pan out?

I’m curious too because it didn’t get resolved on my shift and when I came back, I was assigned to a different patient in another arm (unit).
HIPAA laws prohibits us from inquiring about information about patients that are not directly under our care.

Lexusgs430:



No point pushing this any further......... I cannot help you anymore.......

You never could help me. Help yourself YOU need it

Studymore123:
Yes, they sign DPAs on health decisions and procedures.

Non JWs also sign DPAs

Do you mean that Non JWs also sign these DPAs?

descartes400:


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.

The doctor is also at faulty!

It is only in Nigeria. In obodo oyibo the doctor can get sued. The patient is an adult and can legally claim assault etc.

thesicilian:

True. At times the law is too strict to be applied in normal regular everyday situations.

Concerning the JW nonsense as you call it, I don't think one can judge them too much as everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose to. My only suggestion is that they should look for their fellow JW doctors and hospitals to take care of them when the chips are down than creating headaches for other people.

Seconded

I think the should open their own hospital for only their members, so that all this controversy can stop.

LordIsaac:
This Jehovah witness sef. I saw the scene of one in the movie, "Designated Survivor," and I shuddered at the extremities of man's belief.

Some cannot wait to hear about Jehovah's Witnesses belief with regards to blood transfusion before they start spilling their bile against them. In defense of the Witnesses, I want to challenge the OP to carry out a survey or research to find out the following :
1. Do Jehovah's Witnesses sign a power of attorney to indicate their stand regarding blood transfusion and do they have the legal rights to do so?
2. Of all the number of patients that accept blood transfusion, do all of them survive? What percentage of them survive and what percentage die
3. Of all the Jehovah's Witnesses that refuse blood transfusion, what percentage survive and what percentage die?
4. Of all those that take blood, what percentage come home with HIV/Aids or Hepatitis B a few years after the blood transfusion?
5. Of all the blood being sold for transfusion (and some of us know how blood is sourced in emergency rooms in government hospitals), what percentage is screened and what percentage actually proves that there are no pathogens in the samples?

My point is that so many people are dying in our hospitals daily, not just from blood related issues but from numerous easy to treat conditions. Why then should we demonize the Witnesses as if they are responsible for every death in the hospital?

Coming to their beliefs, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only genuine Christians I know. They truly love their God and will go to any length to obey his commands. If you were tested by God to kill your only son would you have attempted it? Today many of you call Abraham the father of faith but how did he get the faith? If you were there when Jesus told his disciples that they would need to eat his flesh and drink his blood (not literally), would you have been among those to run away or those to pay attention and understand his teaching?

Kobojunkiee:
The man belonged to a sect and may have explicitly given his wife his will should such a situation arise. She may have infact carried out the man's choice and will in this.

Lolz, which one is "may have given" The Op mentioned no such thing in the entirety of this thread. Please stop shifting the goal post and have the decency and humility to accept you were wrong.

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.

she was at the point to save her husband, the father of her children, she decided to let him die just like, and you nothing wrong with this yet

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.

. A husband can ask a wife to speak on his behalf especially in case of. Medical emergencies. There is nothing wrong in what the woman did. Additionally doctors detrmine the PCV level before sugeries and in case of bleeding there are procedures to stop it apart from blood transfusion...Based on your religious
and moral conception a person may reject blood transfusion. Blood transfusion in many cases does not save life. There can be complications at times which may claim lives not rejection of blood transfusion.

foolbuster:


Lolz, which one is "may have given" The Op mentioned no such thing in the entirety of this thread. Please stop shifting the goal post and have the decency and humility to accept you were wrong.

Studymore123:


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.

Kobojunkiee:
So, I was right in pointing out that you seem more interested in attacking my message instead of the issue, so Goodluck!

Perhaps you will understand me if I tell you this. Sometimes ago I felt sick. My wife insisted she would call my siblings. I insisted no. She eventually did. I was not happy about it but I understand why she did that. Simply to avoid issues like this

Kobojunkiee:
Do you mean that Non JWs also sign these DPAs?

Yes, Non JW sign DPAs on medical issues. I know of an atheist who has a DPA on blood refusal and accepts euthanasia, since it is not in conflict with his local law.

duro4chang:
Perhaps you will understand me if I tell you this. Sometimes ago I felt sick. My wife insisted she would call my siblings. I insisted no. She eventually did. I was not happy about it but I understand why she did that. Simply to avoid issues like this

Your story in no way connects to this case in any way or form..

We are talking here of his wife honoring what is potentially her husband's will as far as his religious beliefs are concerned, not some emotional hangup.

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.

this is Africa, we have our ways of doing things, forget all those foreign stuffs jo. The woman should at least have contacted the man’s family members

Studymore123:
Yes, Non JW sign DPAs on medical issues. I know of an atheist who has a DPA on blood refusal and accepts euthanasia, since it is not in conflict with his local law.

Oh, OK! I see what you mean.

Even if she is not charged to court, she is going to bear the guilt for the rest of her life

When it got to that hard point ,she would have just informed the man's relatives, before taking such decision, irrespective of her belief.

Kobojunkiee:

Bullshit, where is the signed document.

Pecoleee345:

The problem now is the guy isn't here to clarify if he agree to not getting transfused with blood.....You no we are in Africa nobody want to hear that part, I can't even suggest it else I will be beating here ooo.

The late husband must have signed a DPA Card ( DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY) which clarifies that no matter the health condition he finds himself weather conscious or unconscious, NO BLOOD must be infused but instead any alternative blood building medications should be used.

Just drag the woman to a competent Court of Justice for manslaughter and she presents the DPA Card and walks home a free woman.

Kobojunkiee:
See attached link is an example consent form for blood transfusion used at UCLA.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.uclahealth.org/neurosurgery/Workfiles/Site-Neurosurgery/Blood-Consent.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj638uz2Mj2AhVSKH0KHacKDEMQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1IhMFz0zrZe-xJHMq8QC-g

There are consent forms for almost everything .

Bro the consent form just like all medical documents patients sign is to protect the hospital from law suits incase anything goes wrong the hospital cannot be held liable.. You should understand why hospital tells you to sign documents. It's for their protection, not for you to consent to save someone's life.
If blood is required to save someone's life, the spouse or family member that refuses that life saving measure can be held responsible and will face criminal charges related to the death of that person..
Try make you wise.. Like I said earlier most Africans migrate to western world physically and not mentally.

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.

Leave the doctor out of the blame please. He's in no position to decide for them, the wife is the proxy and she's solely responsible for his death.

It's not like the doctor would go around asking for religion before performing any surgery

Kobojunkiee:
Marriage law in Nigeria.

so Nigeria law also stated that you should sign a death warant on your husband in the name of religion?

Kobojunkiee:
Your story in no way connects to this case in any way or form..

We are talking here of his wife honoring what is potentially her husband's will as far as his religious beliefs are concerned, not some emotional hangup.

So hu is her religion that says she should not inform the family of the man? Did you read the story at all?

Rubbish! Christianity and extremism.

Man is greater than the law. Quite me anywhere.

Pecoleee345:

I wish you are here now to defend her ooooo.....she really needs someone like you.

Hell just broke loose

Nothing is happening! Her JW brothers will always stand with her. Her faith will save her too. Just chill guy.

UMUAZEE:

Bro the consent form just like all medical documents patients sign is to protect the hospital from law suits incase anything goes wrong the hospital cannot be held liable.. You should understand why hospital tells you to sign documents. It's for their protection, not for you to consent to save someone's life.
If blood is required to save someone's life, the spouse or family member that refuses that life saving measure can be held responsible and will face criminal charges related to the death of that person..
Try make you wise.. Like I said earlier most Africans migrate to western world physically and not mentally.

Why are you still going on about abeg? You lied earlier about these things now you are attempting to spin it as if the forms no dey. Abeg land or fly past!

Consent forms are real everywhere. Simple!

donjahsy:
The late husband must have signed a DPA Card ( DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY) which clarifies that no matter the health condition he finds himself weather conscious or unconscious, NO BLOOD must be infused but instead any alternative blood building medications should be used.

Just drag the woman to a competent Court of Justice for manslaughter and she presents the DPA Card and walks home a free woman.

So you mean the husband was ready to die?? so why did he go for surgery? he should have just stayed home and die na.

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.

You have written nonsense. That's very thoughtless and unfeeling