Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Denied transfusion: what are your thoughts?

Stabbed Jehovah's Witness' beliefs may have let suspected killer go free Read more: what are your thoughts?

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 9:36 PM on Nov. 15, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Answers (9)
  • Aasiyah

    Answer by Aasiyah at 9:37 PM on Nov. 15, 2009

  • the charge and sentence should be for the stabbing ..... not for murder.. they died because they refused the transfusion

    Answer by MELRN at 9:40 PM on Nov. 15, 2009

  • well he did kinda kill himself by refusing the transfusion.

    Answer by kendra1417 at 9:54 PM on Nov. 15, 2009

  • There's so much here to comment on. First of all, the JW man has the right to refuse treatment, we all do. I don't get it, it's not my belief system, but he was informed about the possible consequences and made his choice and his family stood by him.

    As for the murder charge, he would not have died or even needed medical treatment if he hadn't been stabbed, so the person who did it should have been charged with some sort of murder or manslaughter charge. That's why there are so many different degrees, because it takes into account the intent of the person to cause harm. I doubt the man meant to kill him, but someone stabbed him, which did lead to his death. It may not have been the man charged, it sounds like the evidence against him was weak, but someone did it.

    Answer by canadianmom1974 at 9:59 PM on Nov. 15, 2009

  • This mans death was a direct consiquence to being stabed. Period.

    Had he not been stabbed, he wouldn't have needed a transfusion in the first place. It's not like this was an accidental death, like the killer bumped him and he fell down stairs. He was STABBED! And there is NO PROOF that a transfusion would have saved his life - there never is without some kind of time travel to see what would have happened.

    He had the right to refuse a transfusion. But had he not been stabbed, he never would have had too in the first place.

    Answer by SabrinaMBowen at 11:41 PM on Nov. 15, 2009

  • Legally, the attacker is indeed guilty of murder. If I come up and smack someone from behind and they die because they had brittle-bone disease and I crush them, I'm responsible for their murder. I can't just say "oops, I didn't know they had that disease, I get a lesser sentence" because the fact of the matter is, I put my hands on somebody and it lead to their death. Had I kept my hands and malicious intent to myself, they would still be alive. Religious views are no different. This man not wanting his soul condemned for eternity due to a blood transfusion is a part of who he is, it's the "package" that his attacker got when he attacked him.

    Answer by NovemberLove at 12:11 AM on Nov. 16, 2009

  • Answered at 11:41 PM on Nov. 15, 2009 by: SabrinaMBowen
    This mans death was a direct consiquence to being stabed. Period.


    Answer by OneToughMami at 3:20 AM on Nov. 16, 2009

  • He needs to be charged at least with attempted murder, but really I agree with other posters - if he hadn't been stabbed he wouldnt have needed a transfusion to survive, and really there is no way to be 100% sure that he would have lived even with a transfusion

    Answer by Anonymous at 10:15 AM on Nov. 16, 2009

  • Suicide is equally illegal. It is a relief to me that such an ignorant person is no longer spreading their poison. It's just a shame that they force that poison on their innocent children.

    Answer by witchqueen at 8:14 PM on Nov. 16, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.