http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22717121-2,00.html

I am struggling to understand how faith can be more important than life.
Her kids will never know her but they will always hear that she died after having them because of her beliefs.

I can't fathom her husband not overruling that form!

Are you trying to claim that faith should be logical?

By definition it isn't - therefore in this case it overrode even the best arguments to have the blood transfusion.

Those poor babies.

Steph

Her eternal life without her kids sounds like eternal hell.

Terribly sad and rather sickening. Those kind of 'religious' beliefs should not be allowed to interfere with saving people's lives. Yukky.

S

Calm down, it seems to me that you are itching to fight for no reason.
I did not argue her right to choose not to get the transfusion, however I don't agree with it nor can I understand it.
I also cannot understand how her husband could let her die.
Sure, people die in the name of religion everyday. I don't have to agree with it.

Thos poor babies



I agree with this though, she has every right to believe in this, and the hospital are required to respect that as is her husband.

Amanda

Yes I'm sure the babies will get plenty of comfort from the fact their mother was happy to embrace the 'eternal life' at the expense of being their mother.

How horrible for the medical staff and associated people to watch someone die for no good reason. Poor babies too.

very sad

Has hard as it may be to understand an others religious belief - I admire a person who is so strong in their belief knowing that without medical intervention they will die.

Even with medical intervention people can still die - and do.

Having been involved with the care of someone in the same situation, its very difficult, I dont hold a strong religious belief, but they and their family did.

Stories like this really p*ss me off. How could she be so selfish?

That woman must have been so strong to withhold from having a transfusion. How tormented do you think she was!! Knowing she may never watch her poor babies grow up or knowing she may face eternal damnation from having a transfusion.

I am not a Jehovahs witness but I am a christian with strong beliefs and I think she showed alot of courage.

Of course I feel sorry for the poor babies and her family but she believed in something and stood by it.

How is it different from for example a lady who wants a homebirth is pregnant with twins and one is breech. A disaster waiting to happen yet it is something she really believes in doing.

It's different because if something goes wrong the mother home birthing probably wouldn't hesitate in allowing medical intervention.

I see nothing brave or courageous in what she did. She put her own desire for eternal life ahead of what's best for her children. In my book that's pretty disgusting.

edited to answer your question: yes.

A hospital would be severely negligent if they didn't have policies and procedures in place to deal with this. I don't think blaming the hospital is the right way to go.

There is only so much you can do for a person who is haemmorrhaging and refusing blood/blood products.

Really it is a no-brainer for me, religion or not, I can't fathom how someone would give up their life and chance to be a mother to two beautiful babies. It isn't like it is guaranteed that she'll have eternal life, what if she gave it all up just to rot in the ground being eaten by earthworms.

.

That is an entirely different scenario, just because a baby is breech doesn't mean it can't be safely delivered at home, and their are options to go to the hospital for life saving intervention. I think it is crazy to compare the two.

The difference is, this mother chose not to go with the life saving intervention at all. Big, big difference.

What are the alternatives?
Please don't be so ignorant to insinuate that the hospital breached their duty of care.

I think she's an idiot. I'm sick of pandering to "beliefs" which affect other people, in this case some more children who will now have to live their only life without their mother.

I think it's a waste and utter tragedy but respect her right to choose what happens with her body.

Her choice and the hospital had to comply. It was an informed choice I imagine so they had no other option. She was apparently in sound mind so I don't see how her husband could over ride it.

I don't agree with it. I don't think it is being strong. I think it is quite selfish, putting herself before the needs of her children, but it was her choice to make.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84938.php


I found this article a little while ago and found it rather interesting.

arrghh double post

edited to remove

As we dont know the entire details of this case and we can only assume the facts related to the medical management.

This women may have been offered alternatives to managing possible, which in her case did occur, complications to the delivery of her children.

Alternative management could include the use of autogolous blood transfusions - where you donate your own blood to be used in transfusions for yourself. I dont know wether this is acceptable to the beliefs of this particular womens faith. However this is alternative needs forward planning and is of no beifit if bleeding has already commenced.

There are synthetic 'volume expanders' available which I guess would have been used to fluid resusitate this lady.

The use of hyperbaric treatment can be used to oxygenate the remaining blood cells - however you need a hyperbaric unit to do this.

Just as an other side to this discussion how would people feel if it were her husband involved in an accident, refusing blood products and dying? The children miss the bond with their dad.

It comes down to choice, what relationship would she have with her partner, children and family if she or her husband had consented to blood products?

I think everyone has the right to there own opinion. Mine is i think she was selfish.

I also wonder if it is a selfish choice to choose potential eternal happiness (if you even believe in it) over earthly happiness for your kids.

This is my thought also.

I'd rather live a few happy years with my children, and suffer an eternity of hell after, than leave my children without a mother in their lifetime.

If God didn't understand this, then that isn't a God I would want to be faithful to.

Exactly what I thought.

Mellybell Please don't compare home birthing twins with/or a breech, to a person declining critical life saving medical intervention. Two totally different situations.

I don't understand the logic behind what the woman who died, used to chose her fate. Not being a JW I guess I never will. Give me the blood I say

Ditto.

I know its about faith and what YOU believe but I still struggle with the idea that eternal life without her babies is better then life with them.

I just don't ge it.

Could she had donated her own blood, over the course of the pregnancy, so she didn't have to use someone else?

ETA, Isis - I love your byline - that is the best I have ever seen

This is the question that occurred to me. If her faith is that strong that she was willing to take the risk of dying rather than go against the tenets of her religion, then how sullied would she feel if somebody (hospital/husband) had gone ahead with a transfusion against her wishes?

In no way do I agree with her choice, but to her it wasn't a choice.

Like some of the PP's, I believe it was a very selfish choice to make but it was her choice.

I also believe that if she had of decided for the transfusion, then God would have forgiven her but the rest of the church would have been the ones that wouldn't agree or forgive her for her choice.

Let's see.. church goers who blame you for choosing to live your life with your kids or death?

I honestly don't know how she could have held her twins, looked at them and bonded with them, then realised that she was going to bleed to death and let it happen. Awful, truly awful choice to make and one I am glad I wouldn't have to worry about.

While I agree it was her body/life/choice, I think it is a pretty disgusting choice, and Lexico pretty much said it for me !

At the end of the day asking ourself's what if? Why? her beilef? Will not give us a correct answer. No matter how hard we look for one. We may not belive in her decision. It was her's no one's else's. Maybe we should give her some peace she gave up the most importent thing in life, her own life!
It was her's to make!

My friend lost her mother to a similiar way and she is now 28 and still blames herself, I hope her kid doesn't growing blaming themself..

I will never be able to understand myself.

Agree.



I disagree. Once you fall pg, you owe it to your children to try to be the best parent you can be. I think dying for a belief, is NOT in the best interests of your children at all.

fwiw - my life decisions are now 100% considered based on the needs of my children. They didn't just happen here - we created them, so we owe them a responsibility to care for them....at the bloody least, we owe it to them to be ALIVE to look after them.

I think these kinds of "choices" are not brave, they are incredibly selfish. I would prefer to agonise over my faith for a lifetime, then deprive my children of their mother.

Children don't ask to be concieved or born, so really, it's our responsibility to be a parent, not a martyr to religion......and any god that doesn't agree with that, to me, is not worth bowing to and any god that expects innocent children to go without a mother for a lifetime WILLINGLY...is not much of a god in my book.

The mind just boggles at the incredible grip religion has on some people - that's what I just can never understand.

G

I disagree with her decision, but I also respect her choice to decide what she wants with her body. It is a terrible situation to be in, and I am sure that what other church goers thought were the last on her mind at the time of the decision.

She made a choice based on what she felt was right, it would be one of the hardest decisions some one of that faith would have to make, especially when she had her children to think about. I am certain it would have been heartbreaking for her, but she chose to do what she felt was right.

If I was ever in a position where I needed organ donation, I would refuse any organ that was from an animal, even if that meant death. Ethically and morally I disagree with animal organ donation for humans. I am sure I am not the only person who has posted in this thread that holds that view. Some people see blood transfusions the same way, I don't agree with it, but I can understand why they decide not to accept blood from some one else.

My thoughts exactly.

This decsion has really p****d me off. grr how selfish!

Anyhoot wouldnt this be a form of suicide?!?! she knew without it she would die. That rule contradicts itself dont you think!

Ditto to everything *Gracie* said! She took the words right out of my mouth.

I don't agree with this decision, I wouldn't sacrifice what is best for my children, for my own beliefs, but as many other pp's have said, I respect her decision. I'm just extremely grateful that I have not been brought up into this religion or these beliefs.

Luckily for the children, they won't "miss her" because they won't know any different. They won't ever know a mother's love. They will also be brought up into this religion, so they (unfortunately) will think that their mother's decision is perfectly normal, and they would therefore most likely make the same decision with their bodies if put in the same position. Very sad!

Sue are you Shenanny?

Edit_taken out.

She believed she was going to be granted eternal life, eternal life is foreve,r our life on earth is just a drop in the ocean in comparison she would have made that descision knowing full well if her faith was right she would be with those children for eternity she wouldn't have seen it as leaving them behind alone.

I don't agree with it but I respect her right to do so. Unless you can prove 100% without a doubt that her belief's are wrong then you are in no position to judge or call her selfish, and just because you yourself don't believe what she believes dosen't make you any more correct.

You *know* there is no God just as much as this woman *knew* she was going to be granted eternal life.

Regardless of her decision, I find it incredibly sad that those two babies are now left without their mother, and I also feel sorry for their dad who is now raising them without his wife's support.

I wonder if she refused the injection that is generally given straight after birth that is supposed to help prevent fatal blood loss, or if the blood loss happened anyway. I know some people prefer to not have the shot, but surely if you knew you weren't going to be able to try to save yourself if you did need blood, you'd take precautions to try and prevent it? But as I said, maybe she did have the injection and it happened anyway. Who knows. Either way, it's very sad.

Edit_taken out.

I think it's one of those things that has been misinterpreted from the bible. They've taken this line: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood ... No soul of you shall eat blood," and decided that it means that you can't have a blood transfusion.

And communal shunning is the result of taking a transfusion.

Just makes me glad that I am free to make up my own mind about my life decisions - not based on some random persons interpretation of something that was written years ago in a different tongue. Glad that I am free to question and surround myself with people who think differently to me and not have my entire 'community' pressure me to be a certain way.

That poor women and those poor little babies.

Why is it always incumbent on atheists to prove disprove the God theory? About some evidence - any evidence - to support the idea that there is a god. We have plenty for evolution.

It's really not.

What if her babies were the ones that needed transfusions and they were denied it?? would that be okay as well because its their beliefs???

I think its horrible and so upsetting.

Edit_taken out.