In the Australian news today

[MelFromOz]

This is in the news today here in Australia, as you can imagine it has given many people ammunition to attack our faith and many misinformed people are upset by this, it always makes me angry to read the horrible comments, I just want to get in there and defend Jehovah but I know it will turn bad. Why do people refuse to even go to our website and get all the facts it's so sad, they are accusing us of not even being Christian, poor Jehovah. 

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26997728/jehovah-witness-mum-to-be-dies-after-refusing-blood-transfusion/?cmp=fb

[RaymondG]

Very sad...

But the story leaves out so much anyway. Not all of that happened in a few days, it's obviously been something that's developed over a longer period.

I hope the brother has plenty of people to comfort him on the loss of his wife and child.

[MelFromOz]

That's what makes it frustrating Ray, even without all the facts and the complete background of what happened here people are so quick to judge. It's one of the reasons I am disliking facebook more and more. 

[trottigy]

A Jehovah’s Witness woman who was seven months pregnant has died in a Sydney hospital after refusing a blood transfusion which would probably have saved both their lives.

I love the "probably"

Edited April 7, 2015 by trottigy

[hatcheckgirl]

Yes, it is so sad.  There isn't going to be a way to explain this to those outside the truth, there just isn't.  In my mind, though, Australia and NZ are gearing up to "celebrate" one of the greatest "slaughter-fests" of WWI - the ill-fated Gallipoli campaign.  There they willingly were slayed in the name of what?  Disgusting.  And then when one faithful, beautiful sister dies upholding her faith, and the family excrutiatingly supporting her, knowing the outcome, it's on for one and all.  How absolutely satanic.

More prayers for this wonderful family, for Jehovah to comfort and strengthen now.

[Áine]

I heard that she died from multiple organ failure. ..I doubt that a transfusion alone would have stopped her from dieing. But the media will hop on this like Bees around a honey pot, Jehovah is watching and waiting .

[50gumbys]

Don't you hate the news ?!?!?!?!?!

 

It doesn't matter if the truth is modified - it's the story, grab the viewer's attention.

And if they were ever to retract what they said, you'd be hard-pressed to find it anywhere.

 

How disgusting!

 

I remember at the time I was baptised, a brother (who got baptised at the same time) had a real battle on their hands.

His little one was hospitalised and the authorities said he needed a blood transfusion.

He refused.

His wife, not a Jehovah's witness, went with his decision.

(and so did the families)

 

I could not believe the faith of this brother!

He would not compromise this faith.

 

I never forgot this - and since then, he has been a model for me to follow.

 

PS - I wonder how old his bubby is now?

[Dustparticle]

I love the "probably"

I agree brother.
Edited April 7, 2015 by trottigy

[niall]

Take a look at a quote from this news article: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/why-doctors-had-to-let-a-pregnant-woman-and-her-unborn-baby-die/story-fneuzlbd-1227294749260

"In a report on the case published in the Internal Medicine Journal, haematologist Giselle Kidson-Gerber and Dr Amber Biscoe said the woman was likely to bleed to death if she had a Caesarean without a blood transfusion. Without the surgery, she lost the baby, and then suffered a stroke and multi-organ failure and died."

Did they consider any form of bloodless surgery, or blood alternatives?

It would seem that a more accurate heading would have been, "Woman dies after doctors refuse to perform Caesarean!"

Edited April 7, 2015 by niall

[pnutts]

Quote from magazine "Nature" vol.#520  2 April 2015 on transfusion

 

“WEANING DOCTORS OFF THEIR LOVE AFFAIR WITH BLOOD IS GOING TO BE HARDER THAN WE THINK.” 

  When scientists surveyed doctors
working at two intensive-care units at
Johns Hopkins Hospital, the vast majority of
the clinicians reported that the ideal transfusion
threshold was 7 g dL−1. But the hospital’s
electronic medical records revealed that 84%
of patients in one unit and 92% in the other
received transfusions before their haemoglobin
levels fell that low. Some of the doctors deemed
their patients too ill for the lower triggers and
that the evidence did not apply to them

Arrogance of some doctors. Same in the King case from UK. That doctor still feels he is right.