A young Jehovah's Witness mom who died from refusing blood

[Jana814]

I saw something a few years back on a medical reality show. A JW woman had to have a hysterectomy after the birth of her first child cause she was bleeding so badly & the husband refused to allow her to have a blood transfusion.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I completely disagree with the JW position on blood transfusions and the demand that followers choose death over a medical procedure.

At the same time....there are other situations where that "special kind of weird" was actually admirable.

During WWII, they were persecuted by the Nazis as they refused to be drafted, to pledge allegiance to Hitler or to do war work. They lost their jobs and benefits, and were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. The JWs could have avoided persecution and saved their lives by giving up on their faith and their ideals, but they didn't. The "rational" thing to do in Nazi Germany was to cooperate with the regime, but they chose to do the moral thing instead.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... hovah.html

I wouldn't want to be a part of the group, but I also know that the odds of them ever causing me harm are extremely remote.

Oh, I understand. Their practices affect themselves and they aren't allowed to deny their kids life saving blood transfusions so that's good. I dont know if their position with the nazis was a moral one. If the roles were reversed they wouldn't join the military to go save the Jews because they just don't do military service, period.

[Seven Severn]

I saw something a few years back on a medical reality show. A JW woman had to have a hysterectomy after the birth of her first child cause she was bleeding so badly & the husband refused to allow her to have a blood transfusion.

I remember an episode of St. Elsewhere (or maybe it was Trapper John, M.D.) dealing with this very thing. I remember the actress was Asian. After her character was told what had happened she held her baby and made the comment that she'd be her only one.

[nomoxian]

Oh, I understand. Their practices affect themselves and they aren't allowed to deny their kids life saving blood transfusions so that's good. I dont know if their position with the nazis was a moral one. If the roles were reversed they wouldn't join the military to go save the Jews because they just don't do military service, period.

Hmm... that's a good point.

[Toothfairy]

It's actually being challenge that parents can't refuse life saving treatment such as blood transfusions for their kids. And I can't believe the comments. JW really believe that they're special. So they consider that this women died with honor?

[Coldwinterskies]

At the same time....there are other situations where that "special kind of weird" was actually admirable.

During WWII, they were persecuted by the Nazis as they refused to be drafted, to pledge allegiance to Hitler or to do war work. They lost their jobs and benefits, and were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. The JWs could have avoided persecution and saved their lives by giving up on their faith and their ideals, but they didn't. The "rational" thing to do in Nazi Germany was to cooperate with the regime, but they chose to do the moral thing instead.

The fucked up thing about that situation is that Rutherford, the leader of the JWs at the time and the guy who made the JWs what they are today, initially tried to jump on Hitler's bandwagon.

Rutherford first sent Hitler a letter declaring that the JWs were pro-German and agreeing with his agenda against the Jews. When that letter didn't get the response that Rutherford wanted, that's when he started to use his publishing company to antagonize Hitler: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/hitler-nazi.php

Just like in the case of this blood ban, individual JWs suffered because of the stubborn ignorance of the JW leadership.

[nastyhobbitses]

My husband had a similar situation as a resident, where they basically had to watch a woman die after childbirth because she had heavy bleeding and refused blood because she was a JW. Legally, it would have been battery for them to transfuse her against her explicit instructions.

I'm not really sure how this inspires anyone. A young woman dies at what should have been the happiest time of her life, and her newborn daughter is left motherless. The death is 100% preventable. Yep, sign me up. :roll:

Laws vary from place to place when it comes to children. Where I live, if there was a definite risk of harm from refusing the transfusion and the child wasn't mature enough to give or refuse consent themselves, there would be an emergency child protection hearing.

I know that blood transfusions are not entirely risk-free, as my uncle contracted Hep C from a tainted transfusion and ultimately needed a liver transplant. Even still, the medical evidence is clear that transfusions save lives, period.

I saw that the website mentioned the Jewish concept of "pikuach nefesh", which basically means that religious laws (except for murder, idolatry and adultery/incest) are suspended where it is necessary to save a life. Does anyone know how/why that concept didn't get preserved along with other Biblical rules? Was it because it was more of an oral teaching?

AFAIK, it's a Talmudic interpretation of specific verses, not something enshrined in the Bible. Still, it's something I really love about Judaism: yeah, we have all these rules, but if someone's life is in danger, none of that matters (though with that horrific fire in Brooklyn, I really wish the "no using stoves/electricity during Shabbat" rule could be relaxed, seeing as the unsafe workaround for that rule caused the deaths of seven children).

[Coldwinterskies]

The comments remind me of comments made on pro-anorexia blogs. You know, the ones that really make you cringe, like "if you can do 500 calories a day, try cutting down to 300 calories a day and you'll feel sooooooo much better!!!!"

Yes, now that you mention it, I think it is a very similar mindset. In both cases, I think the social pressure to conform is a big factor in why people are going along with such skewed ideas.

[DGayle]

I read above that if the hospital forced the transfusion it would be battery. I get that on a logical level and am a very strong advocate for self determination. However, I made that decision to not get blood when I was out of my mind. There were so many things going wrong with my body I could not make an informed consent. Thank goodness for that nurse.

I think hospitals should get consent or not as part of the initial intake process. I hate to think how many people die because they made medical decisions they wouldn't have otherwise because of a temporary impairment.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

It's actually being challenge that parents can't refuse life saving treatment such as blood transfusions for their kids. And I can't believe the comments. JW really believe that they're special. So they consider that this women died with honor?

Challenged where? The Supreme Court already decided it a long time ago.

[feministxtian]

I think hospitals should get consent or not as part of the initial intake process. I hate to think how many people die because they made medical decisions they wouldn't have otherwise because of a temporary impairment.

The past few surgeries we've experienced, they ask about blood transfusions during the pre-op screening. The one time it became necessary, although it was in the chart, I was asked if I had any objections to the transfusion because my husband was unconscious in ICU. I guess they wanted to make sure everything was cool (this was in a big university hospital). I happily signed the authorization as NOK.

[mirele]

It's actually being challenge that parents can't refuse life saving treatment such as blood transfusions for their kids. And I can't believe the comments. JW really believe that they're special. So they consider that this women died with honor?

In many (most? all?) states in the USA, the hospital will go to a court to have custody temporarily removed from the parents for the duration of the medical emergency. It's given back after the transfusion. The flip side, for adults, is that I've heard the JW elders will descend on the hospital if there's a chance a JW adult might need blood and stay there to give the patient moral support. Until s/he dies.

As far as I'm concerned, this is like sacrificing yourself to Moloch.

[Coldwinterskies]

It's actually being challenge that parents can't refuse life saving treatment such as blood transfusions for their kids. And I can't believe the comments. JW really believe that they're special. So they consider that this women died with honor?

Back in the 1990s, they devoted an issue of their magazine "Awake!" to praising "youths who put God first"(by which they meant kids who died because they didn't get a blood transfusion)

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue." Awake! 1994 May 22 p.2

[snickerz]

Surgeons regularly perform such complex procedures as heart operations, orthopedic surgery, and organ transplants without the use of blood transfusions.

Hmmm, the things they list are planned operations, for which (allowed) autologous transfusions can be given (the patient donates blood ahead of time which is then given back to them in the operation.) So they're being deceptive.

[Bethella]

In many (most? all?) states in the USA, the hospital will go to a court to have custody temporarily removed from the parents for the duration of the medical emergency. It's given back after the transfusion. The flip side, for adults, is that I've heard the JW elders will descend on the hospital if there's a chance a JW adult might need blood and stay there to give the patient moral support. Until s/he dies.

As far as I'm concerned, this is like sacrificing yourself to Moloch.

Taking temporary custody of the children in order to administer a transfusion has also been upheld in Canada. This story is about a set of sextuplets, after two died the four survivors were taken in to custody, received transfusions and returned to their parents. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled against the parents' appeal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... s-1.741159

[Coldwinterskies]

Hmmm, the things they list are planned operations, for which (allowed) autologous transfusions can be given (the patient donates blood ahead of time which is then given back to them in the operation.) So they're being deceptive.

Yes, they have a long track record of lying to their followers about various things (the entire foundation of the religion is based on a misrepresentation of the historical date when Jerusalem fell - if anyone wants to delve into the specifics of that esoteric aspect, this site tries to explain: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-587.php ).

It is sad to think that this woman may have believed that she didn't really need blood and didn't really believe she was going to die without it because of the deceptive information they put out there about blood.

[nomoxian]

Back in the 1990s, they devoted an issue of their magazine "Awake!" to praising "youths who put God first"(by which they meant kids who died because they didn't get a blood transfusion)

I read an article (cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html) about the magazine and saw this:

"Twelve-year-old Lisa Kosack died (no date given) in Canada after holding off transfusion therapy by threatening that she "would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood." (page 13)"

I've seen adults in the ER being tied down because they were too high or something else that made them act in a way that was considered threatening. People who actually say they are going to do something that would put themselves, others, or property at harm could easily be considered in need of physical and chemical restraint... Why did this hospital not give her a sedative so she would be more comfortable, and then preform the transfusion?!

[2xx1xy1JD]

I read an article (cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html) about the magazine and saw this:

"Twelve-year-old Lisa Kosack died (no date given) in Canada after holding off transfusion therapy by threatening that she "would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood." (page 13)"

I've seen adults in the ER being tied down because they were too high or something else that made them act in a way that was considered threatening. People who actually say they are going to do something that would put themselves, others, or property at harm could easily be considered in need of physical and chemical restraint... Why did this hospital not give her a sedative so she would be more comfortable, and then preform the transfusion?!

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/19 ... i2907.html

(The case gives initials, not a full name. I'm not identifying the child, I'm just saying read paragraph 18. I had appeared before this particular judge many times, and he was respected as someone who really considered every case well and who was genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of children.)

L.D.K. was a "mature minor", who was found to be very intelligent, with independent views. In this particular case, the proposed treatment would have offered only about a 20% chance of success, and it would have been painful and traumatic. It wasn't really a choice between life and death, but merely a matter of how she would die, and which faint hope cure she'd pursue. In that way, it's quite different from the recent cases with Native girls refusing chemo for a different, highly curable form of leukemia.

[VelociRapture]

JW men and women die every year from refusal to consent to blood transfusion. It is just heartbreaking. Blood saves lives. Period. The End. There are no substitutes available to someone who needs immediate transfusion to live.

While I'm here, I wanted to say a big Thank You to any of you ladies or gentlemen here who donate blood. When I had my recent accident, I needed several transfusions to save my life and put me on the road to recovery. There isn't enough gratitude in the world for donors whose time and effort ensures fewer people mourn every day.

I'm glad you're doing ok now!

I used to donate blood through the Red Cross - didn't like the needle part, but I was really happy to do something charitable. I had to stop though because, for some reason, the needle always comes out of my vein half-way through the donation now. If you don't fill the bag then the blood is pretty much useless and I don't want to waste resources.

[VelociRapture]

And I'm all for people having different beliefs than I do. . . but when an organization (religious or not) lies to the people about life-saving medical procedures, that to me is so wrong on so many levels. It's bad enough to toy with people's emotions, but it's even worse to play with their lives.

[CelticGoddess]

I do not mind an ADULT allowing himself or herself to die because they refuse blood due to bona fide religious beliefs. Well, I do think it's stupid and a waste, but it is THEIR decision. When they make that choice for their children? It's a sticky wicket, IMO.. of course they will choose their beliefs over "medical knowledge"... but what's the right thing to do? As a medical professional, I would have to cover my liability by having the parents sign some sort of form stating that they refused all blood products due to their beliefs, etc. I would argue myself blue in the face, using anything I could to change the parents' minds, but ultimately? Who decides?

On another note, I, too, have been the recipient of blood transfusions, and I thank blood, tissue, and organ donors from the bottom of my heart, and encourage all people to look into donation and what their organs could mean to others, when they are done with them.

How about when it isn't their choice? I had a patient who had a GI bleed, who was JW. She originally had a "no blood" order but changed her mind and consented to the transfusion. Her well meaning family called the elders in and basically kicked us out of the room to "talk" to her. IMHO, they bullied her into refusing the transfusion she had just consented to. No one can convince me otherwise. She kept saying she didn't want to die, and the elders kept telling her 'it's doing to be okay".

Sometimes, it is the persons choice. Other times, it isn't.

[nomoxian]

I had a patient who had a GI bleed, who was JW. She originally had a "no blood" order but changed her mind and consented to the transfusion. Her well meaning family called the elders in and basically kicked us out of the room to "talk" to her. IMHO, they bullied her into refusing the transfusion she had just consented to. No one can convince me otherwise. She kept saying she didn't want to die, and the elders kept telling her 'it's doing to be okay".

That is so horrible D: !!! I hope she was okay, but I fear the worst...

[Coldwinterskies]

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/19 ... i2907.html

(The case gives initials, not a full name. I'm not identifying the child, I'm just saying read paragraph 18. I had appeared before this particular judge many times, and he was respected as someone who really considered every case well and who was genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of children.)

L.D.K. was a "mature minor", who was found to be very intelligent, with independent views. In this particular case, the proposed treatment would have offered only about a 20% chance of success, and it would have been painful and traumatic. It wasn't really a choice between life and death, but merely a matter of how she would die, and which faint hope cure she'd pursue. In that way, it's quite different from the recent cases with Native girls refusing chemo for a different, highly curable form of leukemia.

Thanks for providing some additional context to that story.

One thing that bothers me about this story is that the judge and the family seemed to be under the impression that there was a realistic chance that the vitamin therapy might actually cure her (the judge refers to "overcoming the disease with dignity"). I would question if the family (and maybe the judge as well since judges are not necessarily scientific experts) was being misled by this alternative medicine doc that was apparently giving her the vitamin treatments into thinking that the vitamins were a viable treatment for her cancer, even though in fact I am pretty sure that even back then it was pretty well established among conventional doctors and scientists that you can't cure cancer with megadoses of vitamins.

Did the family really understand that by rejecting the chemo that they were pretty much choosing to let the child die? Did the girl herself really understand that?

This was not a choice between two equally valid treatments with one having much worse toxic effects. They chose not to treat her cancer basically. I am not sure if someone can have informed consent to refuse a blood transfusion if, her whole life, her family had taught her that accepting a blood transfusion would mean that Jehovah would kill her at Armageddon and not allow her to live on paradise earth.

[chaotic life]

I hemmoraghed after my last childbirth. I am actually somewhat surprised I kept my uterus given my doctor spent 1.5 hours working on me. I had already consented to emergency blood products but I made it to the next day without any and being a healthcare professional wasn't keen on the unique issues associated with blood products unless it was truly medically necessary. All it took what my doctor telling me what my H&H were and not only did I understand why my nurse kept acting surprised that I was coherent and mobile but I immediately consented to blood. I was prepared to argue that necessity was less given it was nearly 24 hours post delivery and instead all I had was, "yeah, only thing that's going to fix that is red blood cells, hook me up."

Yes I hated it. Yes I assumed part of my body's lifetime tolerability of blood products. Yes I assumed the very small risk of exposure to blood borne pathogens. But when your red blood cells drop so far you cannot properly oxygenate your body the 12 liters of IV fluids had certainly supported my circulatory system during surgery, but they weren't going to carry the life giving oxygen. I spent the first day of my baby's life hooked up getting 3 units of blood. They wanted to give me at least a 4th unit but by that point my numbers were high enough to sustain life even if I was still anemic and so I refused more.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for providing some additional context to that story.

One thing that bothers me about this story is that the judge and the family seemed to be under the impression that there was a realistic chance that the vitamin therapy might actually cure her (the judge refers to "overcoming the disease with dignity"). I would question if the family (and maybe the judge as well since judges are not necessarily scientific experts) was being misled by this alternative medicine doc that was apparently giving her the vitamin treatments into thinking that the vitamins were a viable treatment for her cancer, even though in fact I am pretty sure that even back then it was pretty well established among conventional doctors and scientists that you can't cure cancer with megadoses of vitamins.

Did the family really understand that by rejecting the chemo that they were pretty much choosing to let the child die? Did the girl herself really understand that?

This was not a choice between two equally valid treatments with one having much worse toxic effects. They chose not to treat her cancer basically. I am not sure if someone can have informed consent to refuse a blood transfusion if, her whole life, her family had taught her that accepting a blood transfusion would mean that Jehovah would kill her at Armageddon and not allow her to live on paradise earth.

Read paragraphs 17, 22 and 27 of the court's decision.

The judge specifically acknowledged that there was no solid data supporting the vitamin therapy. It seems pretty clear that there was no option that would likely result in a good outcome. The choice was between forcing a 12 year old to get rigorous chemo that she was absolutely rejecting, both for religious reasons and because she was terrified of the side effects, and literally tie her down in order to give it to her, all to give her a 20% chance of surviving 2 years; or to allow her to go to her family, try a long-shot unproven therapy that would likely fail, and die in peace. It wasn't a simple "live or die" decision in this case.

The cure rate for childhood AML has improved since 1985, but it's still far lower than the cure rate for childhood ALL.

None of this makes the Awake! magazine coverage any less hideous. It sounds like they weren't talking about the risks of chemo or its poor prognosis at all - they were just set on portraying this girl as a martyr.