That is, her family who supported the decision to refuse a blood transfusion sued the doctor after. After having a C-section the lady in question began bleeding to death. The doctors told her and her family repeatedly that a blood transfusion was the only way to stop her from bleeding to death, but they said they would put their faith in jesus and accept the consequences... until she died after which they could no longer accept the consequences

Thankfully this lawsuit didn't go through and was just recently struck down! So there is some sanity left in the world.

6030718
I feel there's a pertinent portion of the story that you left out in your summary. The hospital in question advertises a ‘bloodless medicine’ program, and explicitly mentions accommodating religious beliefs about blood transfusions. Without looking at the details, I'm not so sure this was an invalid case; it sounds to my lay ear like they were lied to about what the hospital could do.

6030771

Bloodless medicine isn't something unique to this hospital. There's enough Jehova witness's and people who are super-scared of AIDs, and whatnot or have very weak immune systems that bloodless alternative surgeries were developed specifically for use on these people so that they just don't die in droves. To my knowledge bloodless surgeries aren't advertised as being effective alternatives to the state of the art, but as a way to mitigate the risks for people who weren't going to use blood transfusions anyway.

6030783
The question is, what did this particular hospital tell them when they first entered? Was the woman assured that the hospital would be able to take care of all required procedures without blood transfusions, only to later be told otherwise? The court documents don't make mention of this, but given that they have a program explicitly aimed at these sorts of people, I'm betting yes, they did strongly imply during intake that blood transfusions would not be required… in which case they knowingly lied, because they know very well that complications can happen.

6030805

Well the doctors made them fill out consent forms both to show that they understood that the bloodless surgery was risky and then again that they understood that she would die if she didn't take the blood transfusion when complications did arise. That she signed a second consent form meant that the doctors did tell her that she needed a blood transfusion to survive.

"The consent forms were not admitted merely to show that Seels-Davila understood the risks of treatment, yet elected to proceed," Shogan wrote. "The consents were admitted to prove that Seels-Davila knowingly refused treatments that would have saved her life." 

The article also says that they sought out a hospital with a good bloodless medical program, choosing this one over others. I don't think offering bloodless surgery in general is a bad thing as these people would pretty much just have a 100% chance of death.

I suppose it's possible that the doctor tried to tell them to that the consent forms were just formalities and that bloodless surgery had no risks whatsoever, in which case this would be bad yes, but the court didn't seem to find any evidence of that, at least.

6030826
The thing about consent forms is that it's public knowledge that people don't read them. I reject their legal basis, and I think it's only a matter of time before courts turn a critical eye on it themselves. A consent form doesn't prove that the person understood or had it adequately explained to them what they were getting into; it only proves that they got someone to sign a piece of paper.

6030718
6030771

Unless it can be proven that the hospital misrepresented their bloodless treatment as being more of a viable option than it really it, this whole discussion is kind of pointless. The fact still remains that these people chose to forgo a sane medical option because of their retarded beleifs. There's nothing here to suggest that the burden of responsibility is on the hospital.

6030833
Having dealt with doctors in a variety of contexts, one thing I have noticed that tends to happen is that doctors don't tend to say, "if you take this pill, it will cure you." They've been stuck dealing with idiots like these for so long, that doctors have a very careful, cautious, and self-preserving tone when it comes to doing their job. Instead, they will generally say, "this treatment will have greater risks than the normal one. But it uses your own blood and not someone else's. It has these risks: blah blah blah, you might die from it, there might be complications, it may simply not be effective because every person is different and reacts to treatment differently. You might need to make a choice on a different treatment option if this one doesn't work for you."

The forms and what is written on them are not the important part here. They just established that the doctor did the above. Made his best effort to make the patient understand the risks and options.

The family is not contending that these forms don't say what they thought they said. They are contending that the doctor didn't save the life of the lady. Because they're hypocritical fucks. They said they would be fine with whatever Jesus chose, and then weren't and are trying to retaliate.

I am generally opposed to people dying needlessly. I find that stance weaker than usual when situations like this arise where someone knowingly declines better treatment due to their religious convinctions. I can only hope that evolution works, and that "strong faith" is negatively selected against over time due to situations like this.

This is also part of why I think religion should not be permitted near children. Need to be 18+ (I'd even prefer 25+ honestly) before anyone is allowed to try to sell religion to you. Like cigarettes and alcohol. Religion should come with warning labels:

"this religion is based on cultivating a concept known as "faith" which, in practice, may cause you to make bad decisions, including ones that may harm you and end your life. Here are some of the precepts of this religion which are known to go against medical knowledge and have resulted in tragically unnecessary deaths of members by their own choice due to this faith."

6030925
The facts also include that the hospital willingly conducted an invasive surgery (a cesarean section) on a patient who had already made it clear that they would not consent to a common life-saving procedure if things went wrong. Imagine going mountain climbing with a touring company, and before the trip started, an inexperienced climber made it clear that they would refuse to use a safety harness. Wouldn't the company be liable for negligence if they were like “okay, we'll take you up without the harness”, and the guy ends up falling to his death? Isn't it their obligation to refuse dangerous services if the customer refuses to consent to important safety precautions?

These people are being derided as idiots for not consenting to a procedure that would have saved her life. But the thing is, they knew ahead of time that these people were idiots: Facilitating their entry into a situation where that idiocy would have fatal consequences is therefore the hospital's own fault. They don't get to point to the woman's refusal to consent to a procedure that they knew, very well, that she would never consent to; their defense is that there was a procedure available to save her life, but that defense doesn't hold water when they knew going in that the procedure wasn't viable in this situation.

Basically, ‘the patient was an idiot’ shouldn't be a valid defense. Especially when everyone was aware of what sort of idiot the patient was. You don't get to judge an idiot's life as less valuable, and part of responsibility is compensating for the idiocy of others.

6030952

Well in medicine you can't just refuse to give people treatment. She was going to give birth either way, the hospital can't just say 'no you're not giving birth'. I guess they could have just thrown her on the streets, do that to any witness who needs surgery, but I'm honestly not sure if that's the responsible thing to so.

Hospitals are c9nfronted with a choice to leave these people to die or to do everything they can to help as much as these guys will let them. I can understand taking the first option, but d9nt see the second as negligent.

Also in not saying their lives were worthless, but if you're gonna do stupid things in the name of your religion like this or snake handling or w/e then you do have to live with the consequences.

6031043

Well in medicine you can't just refuse to give people treatment.

You can if you think it will do more harm than good.

She was going to give birth either way, the hospital can't just say 'no you're not giving birth'.

But they did not need to perform a cesarean section. It wasn't a complication of birth that made her bleed out, it was a complication of the specific method of artificial birth-facilitation that they used. They used a c-section because they're used to using a c-section when a birth starts to show trouble, but that calculation should have changed due to the risks of that specific option combined with the patient's refusal to accept blood transfusions.

6031082

I don't think either of us is knowledgeable on birthing complications to make a call as to whether or not the c section was a good call.

And like I said, if you think witnesses give up all rights to surgery then I can understand that point of view.

6031082
At this point you're pulling things out of your ass.

They don't use c-sections willy-nilly. Like all surgeries, it is considered a last resort. If it got to the point of needing one, you can be assured that there was plenty of effort to avoid having to use one, and it wasn't a choice they could have made. If they used a c-section it meant they couldn't have not used it. How they went about doing this c-section, the "bloodless" method, does have risks, and those would have been spelled out to the patients.

Your attempts to push the blame on the hospital are laughable at this point. You can theorize all you want. You can also be sure that the lawyer(s) on the side of the family did all they could to try to do exactly that. They didn't find enough evidence. Neither have you evidence for this theory you're defending. Evidence is there on the side of the hospital.

Some religious nutjobs stuck to their beliefs to the point of killing one of their own, then decided Jesus's plan wasn't good enough. Full stop. End of story.

Don't like hospitals, don't use them. Stop trying to paint them as the bad guys when they weren't at fault and the evidence has been examined to prove that.

6031091

They don't use c-sections willy-nilly. Like all surgeries, it is considered a last resort.

At this point you're pulling things out of your ass.

Take a brief glance at C-section rates and the causes for them, and then come back and say you're the one speaking from knowledge, here.

Edit: Also, ‘like all surgeries’? I have a very simple response to that. Boob job.

6032403 6030926

This is also part of why I think religion should not be permitted near children. Need to be 18+ (I'd even prefer 25+ honestly) before anyone is allowed to try to sell religion to you.

https://youtu.be/yiQkOT1if24?t=2m40s

A reminder that religion can be very dangerous.

6031091
Though I don't know the specifics of this case, in general, hospitals absolutely do use C-sections willy nilly.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/31/caesarean-health-risks-c-section-first-time-mothers

6031792
I guess that explains why it's only allowed in life/death situations where I live.

6030718
I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for shit like this.
She's simply the winner of the Darwin award.

6031810
It's almost as though different places have different rules. Amazing!

6031894
Common knowledge.
Regardless of the hospitals stance on c-sections, both she and her family were stupid morons and she got removed from the gene pool.

Hard to feel sorry for someone who takes religion over common sense.

6031897

Hard to feel sorry for someone who takes religion over common sense.

This goes back to my prior comment about how you don't get to judge an idiot's life as having less value. That's how oppressive regimes happen.

6031912

Hyperbole much?
It's not about inherent worth either so stop putting words in people's mouths, just makes you look stupid.
It's about not feeling sorry about someone who's being too dumb to live.
It'd nobody's fault other than her own.

Would you feel sorry for someone jumping out of an airplane without a parachute as well?
Or someone stabbing themselves to death with a knife because they were convinced of immortality?

6031916

Would you feel sorry for someone jumping out of an airplane without a parachute as well?
Or someone stabbing themselves to death with a knife because they were convinced of immortality?

Yes, I would. It's called empathy, and as I have now said multiple times, it is not predicated on intelligence.

It absolutely is about inherent worth. It is a basic principle of morality that all humans have inherent worth, which means as a moral actor you should feel sorry when someone dies. If you don't feel sorry because the person who died is, in your own words, dumb, then you are stripping them of their inherent worth as humans based on their intelligence.

I'm sorry that you're offended that I'm pointing this out; perhaps if you don't like the implication, you should work on changing yourself rather than denying it.

Edit: Also, hyperbole is a perfectly valid rhetorical method.

6031941
"You disagree with me hence you must be offended."

Intellectual dishonesty ahoy.

6031912

Well on the other hand lots and lots of people are dead because of the Jehova Witness superstition against blood transfusions. Respecting people's beliefs is nice and all that, but this belief is one that directly leads to deaths. No, I don't think people who think all medicine is poison or that drinking cyanide will get them onto a space ship or that if they kill enough people they'll get to live inside the Danny Phantom cartoon are just inherently worthless, but this lady's decision was incredibly stupid and I'm not going to respect it. I honestly don't think respecting beliefs this stupid is a good thing nor does it help anyone. Religious beliefs get far too much respect as it is which is one of the reasons fatalities like this happen in the first place. So yes, I'm going to disrespect religion and superstition and no I don't think I'm being immoral or cruel when I do it.

6031979
More like “I directly implied that you're being immoral, which is something most sensible people would be offended by”. Nice attempt to dismiss my argument by ad hominem, though.

6031999
Where did I say anything about respecting people's beliefs or religion? Nice speech, but it doesn't address a position I put forth. Jehovah's Witnesses are stupid for rejecting proven medical techniques (along with many other things). They do not, however, deserve to die for their stupidity.

6032125

And where did I say that they deserve to die?

6032126
I did not mean to imply that you in particular said anything like that. Some other people here, however, have come awfully close with things like openly saying they feel nothing for a dead woman and objecting to the very idea that it might not be 100% her own fault (“Full stop. End of story.” How dare you bring up a pertinent piece of information that the initial post missed! Such a nuanced and rational perspective some of the people here have.).

From where I stand, I see a bunch of people who came here to laugh at someone dying, and then got upset when I didn't join in.

6032144 If you were the doctor in that position, what would you have done differently, assuming he provided her with all relevant information?

6032164
I would have linked consent for the surgery with consent for the standard backup procedures, for one.

6032144

It's solely her own fault.
She had the information, SHE decided to decline proper healthcare.
So yes, the blame is solely on her.
Full stop. End of story as you so nicely put it.

6032173 If you did that, she wouldn't have consented to surgery.

Here's how I see it:
a) If she wouldn't be a religious nut, she and the baby would survive.
b) The way doctors handled the situation, the child survived, but she died
c) The way you'd handle the situation, both the baby and she would die.

Of all the solutions, yours is the worst because it kills 2 people instead of just 1 or 0.

6032191
The ends don't justify the means; morality isn't just about numbers. According to your reasoning, the ‘best’ solution would have been if they had forced a treatment on her that she had actively refused, because then nobody would have died.

There is no indication that the mother would have died if they hadn't done the C-section. More likely, she would have just had a miscarriage, so it's really a choice between the mother's life and the unborn baby's.

6032186
Since you keep repeating things without attempting to address my arguments, I don't see any point engaging with you. It is amusing, however, that you attribute a quote to me that I had quoted from someone else earlier in the thread. It's almost like you didn't read through the discussion.

6032217
"arguments "
You haven't put forth any proper arguments apart from delusions that someone else would carry the blame for her stupidity.
Not to mention that others has completely debunked everything you've said already.
C-section might be pointless but that was again HER choice and if she wasn't a moron she wouldn't have declined the blood transfusion and she'd still be alive.
I don't get your unreasonable distrust for doctors.

6032310

I don't get your unreasonable distrust for doctors.

I don't get why you think I have a distrust for doctors. It's almost like you're assuming things about my position instead of addressing my actual points.

6032209

morality isn't just about numbers

I find your solution to kill 2 people instead of just 1 or 0 immoral.

The complications are an exception that usually doesn't occur. It's easy for you to take the complication into account now that the ordeal has already happened. They didn't have that luxury.

Also, do you really think telling a person who is just about to give birth about the 1000 different ways she might die is a smart thing to do? The stress alone could have killed her.

6032327
Just drawing conclusions based on this thread and earlier threads.
And again the others has already smashed your "points" to pieces.

6032342

I find your solution to kill 2 people instead of just 1 or 0 immoral.

Completely ignoring my second paragraph.

The complications are an exception that usually doesn't occur.

It is the doctors' job to take all contingencies into account. Hindsight is 20/20? Maybe. But a doctor is supposed to have a foresight as close to 20/20 as they can, too.

Also, do you really think telling a person who is just about to give birth about the 1000 different ways she might die is a smart thing to do?

Uh… I never said they should or shouldn't do that… but are you saying they shouldn't? Because that would kind of go against the idea previously discussed that the consent forms signify that the patient has been informed of all the ways they might die during surgery.

6032349

Just drawing conclusions based on this thread and earlier threads.

Earlier threads? What earlier threads even brought up doctors or healthcare at all? Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else?

6032217
Your argument, form the beginning, has been pointless.

You are presented with the situation as described in the article. In it, we have a court case. One in which the defendant, the Doctor/hospital, was found not guilty. Part of why they were found not guilty, is that they could provide evidence they did everything reasonable within their power to save the lives of their patient.

You are, without any evidence to back your claim, presenting what is basically the prosecutions case. That the Doctor didn't give the right information, did the wrong medical things, or something. You are attempting, as they did, to shift the blame for this death upon the Doctor. You are attempting to present a case in which the woman and her family are not to blame.

So present some fucking evidence. Not speculation, hyperbole, or your own thinly veiled bias that something is systemically or conspiratorially wrong with all doctors/hospitals therefore this one too. You say you would do things differently. You have no idea that your "preference" was or was not what was actually done. You also lack the medical training to form an opinion on how things should have been done that is, frankly, worth even listening to.

The dismissal of your "points" are not because you're wrong or anything, or any of these other topics you're attempting to slide into on morality and such. You're just repetitive. Unless you feel like cracking open the case and presenting all the evidence that was presented in the court, and demonstrating what they did wrong, we can all safely assume the prosecutor already tried to the best of his or her ability to do exactly what you're casually trying to infer wasn't done. Some lawyer who actually knows how to do this shit couldn't pin the blame. We certainly aren't swayed by your attempts to.

As for our reaction to it: I would rather someone not needlessly die. I am unable to affect that into reality. As such, we all are forced to find reasons to continue to be happy and "OK" with bad things that go on around us. I for one find it alright to dismiss needless death when that death is created entirely by the choice of a stupid person. Not that their objective IQ has anything to do with it or reduces their worth as a person, but that it is simply impossible to give every human on the planet the same worth. I can only personally give attention and empathy to so many people before it is diluted into meaninglessness. Could I do more than I do now? Sure. Could I sacrifice my entire life and passion to trying to make the world better for as many people as possible? Some people do that. I'd like to think doctors often fall in that category.

As I stated, it would be far better if we informed people of the risks of religion, treating it like a controlled substance. We let people poison themselves with alcohol if they want to, because it appears literally impossible to stop them. But we can strongly push people to wait until the have physically matured enough to avoid developmental damage caused by underage drinking, and various other problems created by a society in which people drink. Same could be done with religion. Not eradicate it with laws. But force more responsibility. The blame for this situation has been found by way of evidence to be on the part of the religious nutjob. This isn't uncommon. We should, morally, do something to protect these people from the dangers of their faulty beliefs.

6032403

You are attempting to present a case in which the woman and her family are not to blame.

And this is what I mean by nuance, and how people don't like it. It is possible for both parties to be at fault, but no; if I object to solely blaming one party, that must mean I want to solely blame the other party. This is the manure that most of politics is centered around. You can, in fact, choose neither side. That's a thing people can do.

6032403

Not speculation, hyperbole, or your own thinly veiled bias that something is systemically or conspiratorially wrong with all doctors/hospitals therefore this one too.

This deserves a separate post. I have not said anything remotely like “there's something systematically wrong with all hospitals”, so I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending I did. Thank you.

6032902
So, wait. It's not OK to make baseless assumptions, without a shred of evidence, just because you feel like wasting everyone's time with speculation?

Huh. You're right. I don't have any evidence that you think that hospitals and doctors are so bad that we should assume they're in the wrong, and argue against whatever evidence is in their favor without examining it. I'm sure you have some perfectly reasonable, valid stance to build your case on. I will retract my explorations of your motive then until I have evidence for them.

I wouldn't want to give people the idea that I have some ulterior motive for my posts. Lets just stick to looking for the facts on the topic, examining those, and making assessments of those facts and how they've been handled then.

6032935
Saying a perfectly reasonable thing sarcastically makes me think you don't realize it's reasonable.

6032896 The bottom line is, the court found the doctors to be innocent. Are you of an opinion that the court was in the wrong and that you know better?

6030926 ops I for got to click reply 6031599
6032403

6033504
I'm of the opinion that the law is not the arbiter of truth. When your bottom line is ‘are you contradicting a court decision’, you've got to take a step back and ask yourself whether you're prepared to accept any and all legal rulings without question.

6033926 If we can't trust the courts, how can we determine the blame then?

6033935
I didn't say don't give any trust to the courts. I merely countered your attempt to dismiss an argument on the grounds that a court must always be right.

6033948 The court ruling is done. What else do you think we should do as a society about this case?