"Judge sides with family in religious medical dispute"

[Bluzmann57]

A little background on this case. A Clinton, Iowa woman was taking diet pills when she had a bad reaction to them. She was taken to University Hospitals in Iowa City, Iowa and is now in a medically induced coma. She may need a blood transfusion and her husband, who is a Jehovah's Witness, forbade it as he says it is against their religion. Her family went to court and today, the judge ruled in their favor.
"A judge granted temporary custody of a comatose Clinton woman to her father today after her family expressed concerns that her husband's beliefs as a Jehovah" Witness might interfere with her recovery."

In my opinion, if the woman I loved needed a blood transfusion to stay alive, I'd allow it without question.
Article snippet taken from www.qctimes.net. There is also something about it at www.kwqc.com where they label it as "A Question of Belief".
on edit- on the local newscast, they interviewed her father and supposedly she moved her head a bit when he called her name. I think there may be video of it on the TV stations website.

[karlrschneider]

1. They're adults, let 'em off themselves. Less contamination in the

gene pool.

(How "odd" they can't accept transfusions but diet pills are just fine.) Loons, morons they are.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Jehovah" Witnesses are indeed crazy

I mean, when it's 95 degrees with humidity to match, they wander around in black suits. So maybe they shouldn't allow intake of water on real hot days either. I offered one of 'em a beer a few years ago while I was mowing my lawn, and he said no. Boy that beer was tasty.

[Schema Thing]

2. It was waking up to the insanity of Jehovah's Witness blood

doctrine that finally allowed me to get out of that cult.

This is a good ruling, because even if this woman is a Witness herself, she has been lied to and had all the important facts she would need to evaluate their (Jehovah's Witnesses') medical advice actively hidden from her (thru threat of humiliation, shunning, and even death, essentially).

[Bluzmann57]

3. According to what the judge said

she is not a Jehovah's Witness as she hasn't been baptized in the faith yet. Her husband claims that she was learning about the cult,er, religion.

[Schema Thing]

7. Sadly, he would likely have ruled differently if she was a

baptised member

[Heddi]

5. What kind of God doesn't allow life-saving medical treatment?

Sounds like a jerk to me.

BTW--my aunt is a Jehovah's Witness as is her husband. When my great-grandmother (her mother) was seriously ill several years ago, my aunt's husband was throwing tantrums about the kind of medical treatment she would receive. My aunt had to not-so-gently remind him that her mother was NOT JW and that he had NO RIGHT to interfere with her medical treatment, regardless of whether or not it went against their own personal beliefs and convictions.

I guess growing up with a JW in my family, I kind of know about them in an off-handed manner, but i have to say that my aunt is the most non-judgemental person I've ever known and has NEVER even brought up the subject of any of us 'converting' to JW. EVER. Her husband, on the other hand, has a pocket full of Watchtowers and is happy to thrust them upon you at any given point in time. Even if you say you're not interested.

Having a JW aunt, however, does have it's upsides---when JW's come by my house (which isn't very often), I just tell them that my aunt is a JW and I can get all the watchtowers and info I want from her, and I thank them for their time, and they're just pleased as punch and leave me alone :D

[liberalhistorian]

6. That's absolutely nuts, that whole

doctrine of not allowing blood transfusions. There is NOTHING biblical about it, it's the wrongful interpretation of an obscure Old Testament scripture. And they're supposed to be following the New Testament, anyway, which has NOTHING concerning blood transfusions or anything like that. It's absolutely crazy to allow a loved one to die simply because they need a blood transfusion, absolutely nuts.

I remember a case in CO several years ago. A drunk driver had hit a woman's car, injuring her. She wasn't absolutely critical, however, and a blood transfusion would have saved her life. She and her husband refused it since they were JW, despite pleading from the rest of her family that she would die without it, and she did, indeed, die. The driver was then charged with aggravated vehicular homicide. His attorney argued, however, that because the woman's injuries were not critical and she could have been saved with a blood transfusion that she and her family WILLINGLY refused, it was a wrongful charge. Many in the legal community agreed with that, as do I. It wasn't the driver's choice for her to refuse the blood transfusion that would have saved her life.

[acmavm]

8. AND?? What did the judge rule. What was the guy convicted of, if

anything?

[HuffleClaw]

9. its a odd belief that i don't really understand

but i suppose they are entitled to practice their faith as they wish. funny though, that when one's faith lets one do something ELSE the government doesn't like (like smoke pot) the government decides faiths is irrelevent.