We all have heard, or should have heard of the sad story of a certain Jehovah witness woman. At the end of a series of surgeries including a caesarean section, she was in dire need of blood. However, she refused the doctor's request her to receive blood transfusion of the premise that she was one of Jehovah's witnsses. The doctor in charge of her left her alone to die.
This doctor was given a mere 1 year ban from the medical practice, and would resume upon application.
A few ethical issues come to my mind:
--Should someone be allowed to die based on their freely-given consent?
--What, really, do Jehovah;s witnesses have against blood transfusion?
--Should religious beliefs (especially christianity which believes in supernatural healing and recovery) be respected at the expense of natural medical care?

Please discuss your views/opinions,

This one is not new! Almost all hospitals in the USA are very familiar with religious patients such as Jehovah's Witness, Amish, etc. to be respected.

Yes, it is the fact that Jehovah's Witness are against the blood transfusion and the patient do knows about this and is willing to accept the death, therefore the doctor will not be banned because of hospital agreement the patient had signed that he/she will not be sued to doctor for this.

Is that true? The story, I mean? There are alternatives to transfusions as blood is a dangerous drug ever to be administered. Even doctors affirmed this fact.

i just read a Jehovah's Witness book where they explained their aversion to blood transfusions. they say it's in obedience to God's command to keep away from blood. they argue that if you are not to drink blood you shouldnt have it infused into your system. afterall, they say, if you are on doctor's orders to stay off caffeine you would not abstain from coffee only to have it injected into your veins,

personally, i think that practice is sick, why die if your life can be saved. many surgeries require blood transfusions so why do they even go in for surgeries and put their lives at risk

i dont think that doctor should have been banned, he only respected a patient's wish. i believe everyone has the right to choose what kind of medical treatment he/she would receive.

GL:

i just read a Jehovah's Witness book where they explained their aversion to blood transfusions. they say it's in obedience to God's command to keep away from blood. they argue that if you are not to drink blood you shouldnt have it infused into your system. afterall, they say, if you are on doctor's orders to stay off caffeine you would not abstain from coffee only to have it injected into your veins,

personally, i think that practice is sick, why die if your life can be saved. many surgeries require blood transfusions so why do they even go in for surgeries and put their lives at risk

i don't think that doctor should have been banned, he only respected a patient's wish. i believe everyone has the right to choose what kind of medical treatment he/she would receive.

Rather than make a conclusion, find out if there are risks associated with transfusion itself. The 'practice' as you've stated, is done with research. There are Non-Blood Alternatives which have revolutionized the medical practice worldwide to a higher standard for all to benefit. I suggest you watch Non- Blood videos by Jehovah's Witnesses which educate the public on choices fpr the safest health care for eveyone, including doctors.