Bigajeff:
Try this poo in overseas country where their Judicial system is still working and see what the result will be. There are alternative to blood transfusion without loss of life. Who says parent cannot make decision for a child that is yet to reach and independent age. Nigerian heath system do not have the capacity for alternative technology of saving life thereby seeking redress in our faulty Judicial system.

Note: There are numbers of cases where certified doctors has adopted alternative means of treatment successfully without blood transfusion, so this one case cannot justify for the rest. Human right still holds and should be respected.

Which countries are you talking about

DarkJeddi:
Life is all about RISKS,

CALCULATED risks,

NOT silly,

STUPID risks..

You did not answer my question.

Even the so called calculated risks do not stop some of the unfortunate occurrences I have mentioned from occurring.

Engaging in this barbaric act in 2019 instead of embracing advanced alternatives is a stupid risk.

helpee:
lies. Supreme Court judgement can be interpreted anyhow by court. This is just a judicial precedence meaning it can only help your case if you are in court for a similar case but it won't prevent you from being sued. And remember, Jehovah witness is a stubborn set. Even if the case is straight forward, they will still take you to court for transfusing their sect members and will still pursue the case to the supreme Court. Wether you win or not is Immaterial, the stress, the money and the time and the emotional trauma that you will pass through will be too much . Moreso, remember the baby didn't die yet they took them to court. Imagine after transfusion the baby still dies.... creating another scenario. They will now say even with the blood the baby died.... meaning the blood was not necessarily what would save the baby etc. There are too many scenarios in law and medical practice, a doctor should play safe and smart so they won't use you as a scapegoat

I'd rather you shut tha hell up. Common Sect from set you cannot differentiate.

omozu1:
No tribalism first Before Religion If we can overcome this two problems Nigeria will be great

Religion brings tribalism. Imagine putting everybody in one religion

I weep for your future...

yaksdavirus:
Can someone please summarise the bruhaha above. They are un-comprehendible

https://www.nairaland.com/4925803/longrich-business-opportunityreal#77781208

Do u knw wit #9800 to #25k to #40k?
U can start ur Longrich busines&make 10k+ to 20k+ to 30k+ weekly 4rm home&get ur cash bak as products (of ur choice worth that amount instantly)..Ask me"how"not scam/ponzi scheme! We dnt sell/give targets.
Call or chat me up lets get you connected.

toprealman:
makes an interesting read......I'm sure you read the longer "celebrity" nothingness they post here on an hourly basis.

I am a tecky guy I need things straight and simple. And I don't do celebrity gist also

urose93:


You are indirectly saying that you have the right/capacity to your life than it creator. No mortal man is knowledgeable enough to direct his/her steps without following the clear laid down principles from his maker. If a principle/instructions comes from a designer and a manufacturer of a particular product, not following such instructions doesn't really make us smart or proof we have common sense.

You are right at bolded. But here we are talking of a book passed on to us by human like us. We don't have any proof that the book is from the creator, and the reason why we need to use common sense when applying the book.


P.S. Trust me, you will not think like this if you were not introduced to that book; if you were raised in a contrasting environment

engrzico:
I weep for your future...

Weep for your own future because my future is secured and bright. If you like don't do important things with your life be weeping for what doesn't concerns you.

prinsam30:





it is not a crime for u to settle down and read this important judgment neither will u die if you concentrate in reading, it's a straight forward judgment that can help u in the future in case u fall victim, that's the problem of youths of nowadays, they want everything fast fast, tomorrow now u go be the first person to castigate and rubbish the judicial system putting all the blames on buhari....... Nonsense upon ingredient

You no well dey support Buhari make him dey carry your future dey do kabukabu. Nonsenstical element for the highest order. Buhari has made it when he was your age you are here forming chairman. Sacrotistim lunaticstic abnormalialism ibeberisim behaviour from you.

babyhrt:
Silly beliefs
They should not have taken the child home since he got well after admitting blood transfusion.
They should have rejected the child

Or better still they should get a machine to drain out the blood since its the administered blood that is the problem.
Nonsense

Just2endowed2:


and your license might be withdrew and a good lawyer will sue you base on the law of precedent that is now a law provided that another third party was ready to pay the bill but you were following parent advise.

you don't know anything about medicine. A doctor has right to reject patient too and refer to another place. And maybe you didn't read well....they needed a court injuction first before transfusion. There are several judicial precedence concerning Jehovah's witnesses... no doctor is obliged to transfuse if the parent insist unless you just want to....nobody can sue you if you refer the baby and take informed consent.

TheGiftedOne:



I'd rather you shut tha hell up. Common Sect from set you cannot differentiate.

common 'the' you can't differentiate from 'tha'. Idiot

MaziOmenuko:


My dear, you are not making much sense. You don't appreciate the significance of a supreme court rulling. I didn't say the JW won't drag people to court anymore; I am saying that no court will entertain such cases. Of course you will be heard, but the case will be thrown off for lack of merit. That is if monetary awards are not giving against you for wasting the time of the courts and the defendants.

you are funny. Court will entertain any case regardless of judicial precedence. They may follow precedence when delivering judgement but the case can still take another 20yrs before supreme Court will even have chance to reaffirm it's judgement. And no two cases are exactly similar so the lawyers will always capitalize on the little difference to say the case is different from the one supreme Court earlier decided on. Most people assume court is straightforward, get there first and you will understand when the lawyers start twisting Cases. It is never worth it

NB...what are we even saying. You have agreed with me by saying they will be heard. So that solves it. They will be heard...and it maybe in another 22yrs before the case will be decided again during which you will be spending money, time and putting your practice under avoidable scrutiny. While I am not saying the supreme won't help if you have such cases, I am so sure no experienced doctor in private practice without the support of a giant like Chevron will try to be playing heroism by insisting on blood transfusion when the parent are saying no. Take their consent and refer. Nobody will blame you. It is done Everytime in private practice

And the so called parents took the child home... Was thinking they would reject the child. Mtcheeeew

frankmoney:
I'm not in support of the parents just so you know

This issue is not about supporting one side or another. That is a pedestrian issue

The issue here is about how laws are made in society.

It is not inconceivable that the opposite conclusion was reached .
There is an argument for both sides. Unfortunately we live in an era oof "REACTION"

This is a matter of principle of law and it seems really too complex for you.

Who decides what is a good treatment for a child? The question of autonomy? Who is a child? Gillick Competence etc all come into it

Who decides on blood transfusion. abortion, brain surgery circumcision( male or female), should 1mbecile children be given contraception or even sterilized. Can a parent donate a child's kidney if they are dying or not dying?


The issue is about principle not reacting to one particular set of circumstances

What if a Muslim says he does not want blood from a Christian or vice versa for their dying child or insulin made from pigs

What if science in the future can prolong life with translants from goats and pigs. Who decides?

Law is not about reacting but establishing jurisprudential principles that span scenarios and generations

MaziOmenuko:


My dear, you are not making much sense. You don't appreciate the significance of a supreme court rulling. I didn't say the JW won't drag people to court anymore; I am saying that no court will entertain such cases. Of course you will be heard, but the case will be thrown off for lack of merit. That is if monetary awards are not giving against you for wasting the time of the courts and the defendants.

Fundamental error

"Such cases"?

Two things
1.Supreme courts can reverse themselves over time/generations or in the light of NEW LEGISLATION. The Supreme Court only interprets existing legislation which could change. Even the constitution could change

2. "Such cases" What exactly is such a a case? The law is notorious for being behind technology.Technology develops everysingle day. You cannot legislate or litigate at the same rate

What if in fuuture it becomes possible to save liveswith blood transfusions or organ transplants from pigs and cows? The law is not ready for that
The possibilities are infinite and to that extent many cases will always be heard on their own merit

helpee:
you don't know anything about medicine. A doctor has right to reject patient too and refer to another place. And maybe you didn't read well....they needed a court injuction first before transfusion. There are several judicial precedence concerning Jehovah's witnesses... no doctor is obliged to transfuse if the parent insist unless you just want to....nobody can sue you if you refer the baby and take informed consent.

you are right too

Reminds me of the movie "The Children Act".

Then what's the need of taking the child to the hospital then? Stupid people everywhere.

"Open Heart Surgery Achieves Success with out blood transfusions
https://sharing.mayoclinic.org/2017/10/26/open-heart-surgery-achieves-success-without-blood-transfusions/

**
https://windsorstar.com/health/bloodless-surgery-option-reveals-unexpected-benefits
The so called "common sense" of man is INFERIOR to the wisdom of Jehovah, the Supreme Father to whom every family in heaven and earth owes it's name ( Eph3:14,15. Psalms 104:24) .
The instructions from Jehovah is "abstain from blood", (Acts 15:20 Lev17:11,14) .
Na which man know pass God?
JWs choice is to obey God in all things Acts5:29
Some comments here were borne out of crass ignorance and to a large extent, prejudice .

There are various safer alternatives to blood transfusions known to medical science and medical personnel in this part of the world can not afford to be left behind as far as current best practices of their esteemed profession is concerned .

** Blood transfusions is not the one stop cure all , which most health professionals would want us to believe .
*** Why should the Court determine what medical treatment is best for a child?
One day they will rule that Atheism or LGBT Studies is compulsory for Post Primary institutions.
**The age of the child wasn't given, I'm aware that in some cases the law recognize the right of a minor to speak up for himself/ herself (independent of their parents beliefs) before for the Court will pass judgement as to legality or other wise of the doctor's request . It seems that aspect wasn't taken into account before the court verdict.

Hopefully with more advancement in medical science and improved health care , that Court judgement would be fit only for the history books .

The way out is for JW's to practice banking of individual bloods against such times of emergency.
If they fail to cope then they should bear the consequences.

Mynd44:

Not just blood transfusion right now.

Imagine a muslim couple takes their female child to an hospital, if the only doctor available is a male doctor and the doctor finds that if he doesn't act, the child can die, the parents cannot ask him to step back. The right of the child to live outweighs the freedom of religion of the parents and the doctor can administer treatment

Where did you get this wrong notion from
To think we are talking about a minor here.
Islam does not forbid a child from receiving medical treatments from an opposite sex. For a grown up female, it's permissible for her to seek healthcare from a male doctor/nurse if a female doc/nurse is not available.

I have been in a situation where a Christian lady insisted that she wants female doctor and nurses.
The male nurses had to excuse her

Zeinymira:


Where did you get this wrong notion from
To think we are talking about a minor here.
Islam does not forbid a child from receiving medical treatments from an opposite sex. For a grown up female, it's permissible for her to seek healthcare from a male doctor/nurse if a female doc/nurse is not available.

I have been in a situation where a Christian lady insisted that she wants female doctor and nurses.
The male nurses had to excuse her

Islam does not forbid it but some sects in Islam forbids it.

I have seen it happen.

Mynd44:


Islam does not forbid it but some sects in Islam forbids it.

I have seen it happen.

Islam is more about saving lives first.

Please, kindly mention those sects. We know JWs in Christianity

yaksdavirus:
Can someone please summarise the bruhaha above. They are un-comprehendible

Try just try to read, you won't die.
Don't be intellectually lazy

yaksdavirus:

I am a tecky guy I need things straight and simple. And I don't do celebrity gist also

I hear you

Take it any Wer a belief remains a belief,take itvor jettison it

GavelSlam:
Much as I like JW, this is one of their doctrines that goes against common sense.

They should review this within their Kingdom Hall.

Do away with primitive and archaic practices.

the funny part is that they are one of the few Christian groups that actually try to follow the Bible (albeit rigidly). From this blood thing to women not presiding over men in the church, they are in the Bible. The same Bible in which Abraham was praised as a man of faith for attempting to murder his child as a sacrifice to God.

The Bible tells us that your relationship with God is more important than the life of your child and you should be willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to obey God.

Perhaps you mean do away with primitive and archaic books

Mynd44:

Not just blood transfusion right now.

Imagine a muslim couple takes their female child to an hospital, if the only doctor available is a male doctor and the doctor finds that if he doesn't act, the child can die, the parents cannot ask him to step back. The right of the child to live outweighs the freedom of religion of the parents and the doctor can administer treatment

The right to live outweighs the forbiddens.
In the example you brought forth, anybody that understands Islam very well would know that the parents has no choice than to allow the doctor to treat their daughter if it's a life threatening ailment

It also applies to a Muslim man if the wife is sick. It is preferable that a female doctor attends to her but if non in available a male doctor is allowed to threat her.

stargazer22:


Is this not commonsensical Africans still have a long way to go sha

It's not an African thing. In the US, the parents would win the case. I read that the doctors hardly interfere with the JW beliefs as regards blood transfusion

koyyes:
People take in blood and still die, contract hepatitis/ aids, discover allergies and mutated blood group/genotype etc . Who gets sued when these happen?

That is always their argument. Are they praying or hoping that their child would contact any of these? What is the ratio of those that contact them through blood to the ones that don't?

In this case, did the child contact any?