Woman died after refusing transfusion
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Print
Email
A Jehovah's Witness who refused a blood transfusion in hospital had a 98% chance of surviving the bleed that killed her - if she had been given the procedure, an inquest was told yesterday.
Grieving husband Philip Baxter said his wife Anita (56) “did not want to die” but “did not want a blood transfusion”.
A coroner has called for hospitals to consider seeking a court ruling in similar contexts, where a patient refuses blood on religious grounds.
Mrs Baxter, of Naas, Co Kildare, died of acute cardiac failure caused by blood problems in Tallaght Hospital on September 15, 2009. The Jehovah's Witness died five days after surgery to remove a tumour from her colon, after which she suffered significant bleeding.
Surgeon Diarmuid O'Riordan told the inquest there was a “98% to 99% chance she would have survived if she was given the appropriate blood transfusion”.
Dublin County Coroner's Court heard yesterday that Mrs Baxter signed an informed consent form stating she didn't want blood, even as a life-saving measure. Coroner Dr Kieran Geraghty recorded a verdict of death by natural causes.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Soldiers are permitted to die for their country, in fact are positivly encourage to do so. Should not everyone be afforded the same right.
Posted by Neil | 11.01.10, 13:56 GMT
The Jehovah's witness is a cult of christanity also Known as a Destructive Cult.
I personally think it is wrong to tell these to refuse blood and allow them to die but if a Jehovahs witness took blood this person could been disfellowshipped and shunned.
It is also spiritual & psychological abuse as I already know.
Posted by Vincent | 04.01.10, 08:02 GMT
Theologically,Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult of Christianity. The oppressive organization does not represent historical, Biblical Christianity in any way.
Sociologically, it is a destructive cult whose false teachings frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse,as well as needless deaths.
Posted by Betty | 23.12.09, 06:49 GMT
That small percentage of not surviving with the blood transfussion is never really indicated. People are criticized for making that choice. Each member is given the facts both biblically and medically by the doctors. Had this person decided for a blood transfussion and still indead died, Dr. Diarmuid O'Riordan would have said that they had informed the patient of the minimal risk involved, and that they had done everything possible. I do however respect the Doctor for respecting the patience decision to not be administered blood.
Posted by Marie | 22.12.09, 20:02 GMT
If an adult wants to believe this nonsense, then fine, let them die. However, if an adult wants to apply the same dogma to a child, then the state needs to intervene. Children do not choose their religion, different religions are forced upon children by their parents and society.
Jehovah's Witnesses interpret a verse in the bible as an instruction from 'god' to refrain from blood transfusions. Here is the verse:-
Acts 15:28-29 (New International Version)
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
That's about it! So, are JW's just following the teachings of the bible? I think so. That's why I believe that they should be allowed to die if that's what they want. However, children should not be treated in the same way.
Posted by WH | 22.12.09, 16:14 GMT
About 250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses are dead for not taking blood since 1945.
A man made dogma unfairly applied
Posted by Charles | 22.12.09, 08:12 GMT
The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.
Posted by Nathan | 21.12.09, 14:16 GMT
Jehovah's Witnesses,blood is dangerous but 1/3rd of all trauma deaths are from bleeding out,so not taking emergency blood is more lethal.
For elective surgeries by all means avoid a transfusion by banking your own blood or building up your own existing potency with vitamins etc.
The Watchtower society will not allow a JW to bank their own blood.
Posted by Elizabeth | 21.12.09, 08:26 GMT
Blood transfusion to Jehovah Witness is like psychiatry to Scientologist
Posted by William | 21.12.09, 08:01 GMT
Here's a Question, if the Surgeon was so sure that blood would have saved this Jehovah's Winesses life then why was there no other blood products available. They can do complete Heart transplants and organic Surgery in 3rd World Countries now without the Use of Blood.
Ireland - Remember the Hepatitis infected blood COVER UP that affected the lives of hundreds in Ireland!!! This woman had and took the right to act on her beliefs based on the Bible and Scriptural direction. Who will investigate as to why there was so much Blood Loss during surgery in the first place.
Get the facts right first Please!
Posted by Jon | 21.12.09, 06:34 GMT
The watchtower organization has denied my right to free speech and free will.
Posted by Kitty | 20.12.09, 23:12 GMT
Controlled studies are better. Google Bloodless Hospitals, who report no such grim statistics. Quite the opposite.
It's a religious conviction, not a party hat. It's to be taken as seriously as a heart attack.
Posted by Margarett | 20.12.09, 07:11 GMT
While disagreeing with the J W beliefs, I do believe that a mature person has the right to refuse blood or any other treatment that they do not want.
I wonder why elective surgery, that was performed in the knowledge of her stand, went so horribly wrong?
Posted by D Black | 19.12.09, 20:16 GMT
Really? How could a Dr say should would have a 99% chance of living If she had taken the blood? Could the hospital guarantee she would NOT die if she did take it or not get a disease from the blood given to her? No they could not. She is an adult it is her choice. I assume she was well informed on all her choices? And she was equally well informed why her choice of not taking blood was sound and based on the bible not her religion. Many non Jehovah's Witnesses do not take blood will the courts take away their rights too?
Posted by Brenda | 19.12.09, 14:38 GMT
Blood transfusion ban is just man-made dogma.
At its core, the Jehovah's Witnesses refusal of blood transfusions is based entirely on faith, not on science (as their own "Blood Brochure" is very specific about). Bloodless surgery as a *preference* may be more popular than it once was, but that is not the issue at hand.
The *doctrine* and practice of letting someone die rather than allow the use of blood in life-threatening situations is the real issue. And at its core is the blind adherence to the dictates of an organization of men.
The "blood issue" is the JW's Jonestown Kool-Aid. It is their baseless test of loyalty to their Society. Despite the fact that it makes little sense to a silent majority of them anymore, they think it proves their faithfulness to "God's organization" People who die refusing blood, or who let their children die,are considered heroes.
The Watchtower has teams of lawyers to protect itself from wrongful death lawsuits.
Posted by Vincent Roberts | 19.12.09, 09:53 GMT