Treadway:
Many have echoed your conclusion here, but it is not entirely correct. If the family really wants to take her up, she is in serious trouble. The point/fact is how does she PROVE that the husband consented to her not allowing transfusion under any cirscumstance? The laws of the country tho shambolic is still weightier than any gaddem doctrine, and I can tell you not all jw follow all the rules all the time. She is in soup, unless she is lucky to escape the wrath of her in-laws somehow. If it was someone who wasn't of age eg their child, that can hold water, but for a full grown man she would have to prove explicitly that he was on board with the plan, but she can't cos he is dead as a door nail

Modified: I just saw you used the word 'probably', which def suffices

God bless you ooo... the Man had Right to Life!!!!!!!! Even if he had a right to freedom of worship...but na person wen dey alive dey worship naa!!!!

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

Am disappointed in you.

Am one of those people that are against in-laws fighting a wife over her husband's properties,but you see this ba!!!,i no go gree, because this is not normal,she killed him period.

A belief against blood transfusion, but not against surgery nor drinking alcohol? That's a belief for dimwits. I lost a close friend 17yrs ago because of this dimwit belief. His uncle declined the request to get blood for transfusion. Boko haram is a learner where jehovah witnesses are in extremism.

Are you sure the woman and her husband are really Jehovah's witnesses?
Jehovah's witnesses usually have a legal document that speaks on their behalf in cases like this. Even if they are unconscious. They don't go "hush" "hush" about the fact that they don't take blood. They will inform the hospital and even the doctors before hand. If the hospital and the doctors disagree, they usually have other hospitals and doctors on stay by that they can go to through a program they have called the Hospital Liaison Committee.
Also the family will be carried along. A woman will not single handedly make that decision for her hubby.
There are lots of factors here that do not sound right.
I doubt if they are really Jehovah's witnesses. Hence the reason you are not seeing any witness around her right now.
So many loopholes in this story.

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

Sorry to say but ypur assertion makes no sense at all.

According to the op, the man was semi conscious and could not take decision whether or not he shud be transfused in that state, however the JW usually have a legal document against blood transfusion called POWER OF ATTORNEY. Despite his unconscious state, if his wife presented the man's power of attorney, then the doctor must respect the decision he took even before lapsing into coma. But for an unconscious man without a power of attorney, the wife had no right to deny him right to life, at this point the doctor reserves the right to save the man.

Is the Deceased a JW cos he must have known this could happen before making the lady his wife. So I think he knows what he is doing. (choices)

May his Soul rest in Peace!


Let's look into How we can get out of FG snares of hardship pls.

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

People dey ooo are u serious

They will never transfuse blood, that one shock me, and now see the result...

Pecoleee345:

The husband too is also a jehova witness but he didn't take the decision clearly cause he was semi conscious.

if the husband is a Jehovah's witness he would have taken the same decision as the wife if he was conscious. it is what has already been discussed by the couple and they even have a no blood card with them in case of accident and the victim is on his own and unconscious.

The stupid thing about the JW doctrine is,,: when this same pple go abroad, they cant tell the doctor not to use another person Blood. They dare not. Is only in Nigeria JW they do this nonsense.

Kobojunkiee:
Apart from the law, right and wrong becomes subjective. Following her belief, she is probably convinced she is righteous in her decision. Throwing such things as tradition and norms at others only holds meaning if they also subscribe to the same set of norms and traditions that you do.

As for who owns the man, the man owned his own self...and he chose ti sign it away to the JW ideology.

This is indeed a sad situation but their isn't anything that can be done at this point. The woman was rightly her husband’s guardian by law and she choose to uphold their religious belief over whatever standard others may have or belief in. There is really nothing to that can be rightly done about that.

Kobojunkiee:
Your post there contains contradictions. If the law did not recognize what you claim as jargons, the governor would not have had to step in to overrule the situation in that case.

Also, as to your claim that the governor almost pressed charges, I wait to see what he had wanted to charge the woman for since I am not familiar with the case myself.

. The witnesses believe that there should be no transfusion for the child but the law was against it. That's what I mean.

That was why the state took over the treatment of the baby and administered blood transfusion to the little girl.
If the baby had died, the state would have charged her because they said she shouldn't make such decisions for a minor as the child belongs to the state, her being the parent notwithstanding.


They also said that it's only a grown adult that can personally make such decisions for himself or herself only as the case may be and that such decisions can't be made by proxy.
It can only be recognized like in the case of that dead man if he had made a written instructions prior to his being unconscious.
Where this is not done, the state makes the decision as the decision maker in a matter that has to do with life taking.

Do you know there are other people with "funny" belief systems too? If someone comes and says his religion instructs him to kill people for rituals or rape virgins to achieve breakthrough. If such a person is caught, would you dismiss it based on it is his belief ?

One thing,I have learnt in all these is that you are free to believe anything but you'll be responsible for how it affects others negatively.

josite:



They should leave the woman alone.rejecring blood transfusion is a Jehovah witness thing.thats why you should be mindful.of the docteines u have evidently subscribed to.

Besides the wife may already be tired of the hubby

Oga shut up. You dont have the right. Yu dont even have the right to kill yourself.
The doctors have all right to save you.

ableguy:

Which Europe?
Una go just open mouth waa dey talk wetin u no know, abi dem tell you say Jehovah's witnesses in Europe don't refuse blood transfusions and in some cases may not survive?
Or you don't know everyone have the right to choose a particular kind of treatment? In fact one can even outrightly reject treatment, it's his right and will be respected.
Maybe because people don't sue organizations here that's why everybody do as they like and this is one good case to head to court.
Abi u think say I don't have the right to sue you for issuing a particular kind of treatment that I abhor?

But there leader takes proper care of himself with western drugs.... Make una day deceive unaself... The bible say it is the sick that needs the doctor ���

That's her belief base on what she found from the bible.According to Leviticus 17:11, For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 14 says " For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” . So taking blood whether eating, transfusion,whatsoever destestable to God.that must have been what she saw and belief.

Acts 5:28-29 isnt even talking about blood transfusion.
It was the pple that crucified Jesus that were afraid that Jesus Blood might come to hunt them.
Are u people alright like dis?

grandstar:
Pecoleee345
The wife did not make the decision. Her husband did. She was simply obeying his decision. I am a Jehovah's Witness.

Now imagine it was the wife that needed blood and the husband "rejected"? Was it the husband that made the decision or the wife? This is the same wife that rejected blood transfusion for her husband, knowing fully well the implication?


No Witness wants to die. We are simply following scriptural injunctions to abstain from blood.

We are urged to obey Caeser and we do our utmost in that regard. All Jehovah's Witness working in the headquarters and branches globally are all vaccinated. All our members have been advised to get vaccinated,but not imposed. At the end, it's a personal decision.

We are just only opening our doors to our meetings this April. All our meetings till now have been on Zoom.

However, in the area of blood vaccinations, we will obey God as ruler, rather than man (Read Acts 5:28-29)

To learn why we reject blood transfusion, please visit this link https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-blood-transfusion/

You can listen to it as an audio if you prefer.

Genesis 9:4 said Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.what will you say about this?

Kobojunkiee:
Not according to the Law.

According to the law she committed murder. Many JW religiotards have ended up in jail for such stupidity.

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

I sincerely hope u talk this trash if that man happens to be your brother.

Act 15:20 said, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. Both old testament and new God made it know to us to abstain from it.remember what Jesus said who ever saves his life now will lose it and whoever losses his life now on behave of me will gain it.lets wait for d perfect life that is coming with full of enjoyment than this life that is full of pain and sorrow. No lasting joy now.

Jw have a card called No Blood Transfusion ,which everyone signed as a prove of what I believe in case of any casualty

Swissgoldtrader:


God bless you ooo... the Man had Right to Life!!!!!!!! Even if he had a right to freedom of worship...but na person wen dey alive dey worship naa!!!!

nkemchineke:
The stupid thing about the JW doctrine is,,: when this same pple go abroad, they cant tell the doctor not to use another person Blood. They dare not. Is only in Nigeria JW they do this nonsense.

For your mind u don talk

emmanuelbrown26:

Rubbish upon rubbish, must u comment on every thread without a reasonable something

abeg where that mad person come from. Person Life..

Kobojunkie:
Resurrect a baby that never believed in Jesus Christ and was never born-again? How and for what reason - John 3 vs 3 and John 3 vs 5 - 8?

A parents holy or righteousness standing before Jehovah makes them holy before him (1 Cor 7.12-14). Even one parent, not even 2, righteous standing before is enough to make them holy.

This will be so until when they are old enough to start "carrying their own load" (Galatians 6:5)

nkemchineke:
The stupid thing about the JW doctrine is,,: when this same pple go abroad, they cant tell the doctor not to use another person Blood. They dare not. Is only in Nigeria JW they do this nonsense.

Who told you this? In advanced countries , medical personnel are even more inclined to accept our refusal as they respect the rule of law and constitution.

If i was the man's brother, sister, wife, or father i will hunt that woman to the end of her days both physically and spiritually for killing my beloved son or brother.

Blood transfusion is not eating blood.

Eating blood gets processed from the mouth and into the small intestine, just like food.

Blood transfusion is to supplement your huge loss of blood.
Big difference.

And second, she should have told the inlaws sponsoring the whole medication, what's going on.
It is not her full right to decide that.
Since she is not the one footing the bills.
That is wrong.

Hopefully, this will rearrange the odd beliefs.

nkemchineke:
[s]Oga shut up. You dont have the right. Yu dont even have the right to kill yourself.
The doctors have all right to save you.
[/s]

Stop saying things you have no knowledge about with a loud voice.

Unless he's not a JW, what's the problem?

That's what JW believe (even though it's strange), so you have to respect it.

Kobojunkiee:
The woman was married to the man at the time of his death, so there is technically nothing wrong with what she did.

Being in charge of the bills does not give one legal guardianship so the in-laws are wrong in assuming they should have been consulted on the matter. So the in-laws should probably work on accepting their loss and moving on from this.

What about the man himself, did u ever considered that he would have consented to the blood transfusion if he had the chance to.

izibili44:
abeg where that mad person come from. Person Life..

I think she left yaba left some months ago