Question to Jehovah's Witnesses (No Atheist)?

[sayre]

Nancy DiGeronimo, a Jehovah’s Witness, received a life-saving blood transfusion when complications arose after she gave birth to a healthy boy. But even so, reports Frank Donnelly in The Staten Island Advance, DiGeronimo then sued her doctor and Staten Island University Hospital for medical malpractice alleging the transfusions of another person’s blood conflicted with her religious beliefs.

Jehovah's Witnesses do you believe she did the right thing to sue the person who saved her life?

What if this happened to you would you also do what she did?

[hjortur]

The law protects patient choice.

I don't know this case but if this was an adult and her express requests for treatment were not respected she has every right to sue. I would sue the pants off whoever violated my right to control what goes into my body.

MY BODY! MY CHOICE!!

[bachir93]

I'm only answering because you said no atheists

IM AN ATHEIST AND I'M PROUD

I'm only answering because you said no atheists

IM AN ATHEIST AND I'M PROUD

[wynn]

I'm only answering because you said no atheists

IM AN ATHEIST AND I'M PROUD

[jasper]

If the medical authorities deliberately acted against her express instructions {if that's what they were}, then yes, she is quite justified to sue; they are guilty of malpractice.

[jarl]

ALL JW's are brainless cultists.
Have you noticed that their kingdom halls have NO windows in them? That's because terrible things happen behind those closed doors.
Honestly, talk to one for a few minutes, they are so mentally screwed up that I think we should deny them the right to vote and drive cars...

"(No Atheist)"
Sorry Zippy, you don't get to dictate that. Only Yahoo makes the rules around here...

[kirklin]

even though i hate abortions this would blow that argument out of the water.

patient does have rights and who knows how this will effect her life/body in the days to come. u can't force your own belief on someone who clearly have an advance directive to support her stance. the doctor was wrong and this patient will have to live with this for the rest of her life.

u may not agree or respect with us but have to accept it.

[talbot]

I think she is a total b*tch

[freedom97]

Ungrateful cow!
She's as daft as a fvcking brush!
Wish I were the judge in that case! She'd get 90 days for wasting the court's time!

And just saying (No Atheist) is like a red rag to a bull! That just marks you as a closed-minded little (insert Y!A asterisks here)!

[marlan43]

It is obvious that she was given the transfusion AGAINST her will, and this constitutes assault.
Otherwise she would not be suing the doctor and hospital...
J.W's are obedient to this scripture...

(Acts 15:20) but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD...

J.W's do value life and will agree to blood expanders...not blood in itself but saline solutions and similar.
It has been proved that the body can quite quickly convert such liquids into a persons blood type, eliminating the need for whole blood transfusions...
Even the U.S. military is seriously investigating " bloodless" surgery on its troops injured omn the battlefield...because it eliminates the need for storage of whole blood, and also eliminates the possibility of contaminated blood e.g. AIDS and hepatitus.
So the hospital was WRONG in its thinking that its actions were necessary...
Any J.W. is prepared to actually die rather than be disobedient to Jehovah by accepting whole blood transfusions.