Blame of death after refusal of a blood transfusion.

While researching this survey I found This Memorial Site which not only has details on many "deaths because of blood transfusion refusal," but also a note that due to a lawsuit the Watchtower no longer decrees that JW need refuse a blood transfusion. Apparently it is not well know, however.

Boy, am I completely torn about this one. On the one hand, I really hate drunken driving and think that the driver should be punished for killing this woman. On the other hand, I really think that this woman killed herself, and I wish there were some way to have the law reflect that without letting the driver off. I would say we should prosecute the corpse for suicide, only I don't believe that suicide should be illegal. Certainly, if she had life insurance and it had the fairly common clause letting the insurance company off the hook for suicide, they shouldn't have to pay. I think I have a general problem with punishing people for the outcome of their actions, as opposed to their intent. (e.g. punishing murder more severely than attempted murder) But then, we can observe outcomes, and it's difficult to judge intent. Very tough question, and I'm glad I wasn't the one who had to decide what to charge him with.

I wonder how refusing a blood transfusion under those circumstances doesn't equate with suicide...

difficult question- the woman wouldn't have been in the situation/had to make a decision, if the drunk driver hadn't hit her. if she had had the transfusion and died it would be considered his fault. i would chose he is guilty of causing the woman's death, killing the woman sounds like first degree(premeditated) murder. although some would say it was premeditated because he got behind the wheel drunk. difficult one! maybe, 2nd degree or manslaughter.

I really think it's nutty that some religions promote the rejection of medical treatment, thus I actually take the side of the drunk driver in this case. Though, I still think the drunk driver should be prosecuted for striking someone down.

What is the likelihood of the accident having occurred if the driver were sober? It does not matter if the injured person refuses a treatment, the situation would never have arose if the drunk had stayed out of his car. It is fully his fault and he should pay for the results.

This is interesting, friends and i were talking about this case a couple of days ago. Also I believe that there was a way to give her her own blood back after being cleaned which is acceptable to JW, but the hospital didn't offer the procedure.

You are guilty of killing the person is someone has a heart attack during a bank robbery that you do, so I think the driver is guilty.

As far as I'm concerned, drunk driving that results in death is premeditated murder. There is no excuse for driving drunk. To kill someone in a car you have to do so many things wrong it can't just happen by accident.

wow... even though i checked off "guilty of harming the woman only" with the rationale that, by refusing the transfusion, the woman caused her own death, reading the comments has rendered me completely baffled. If the woman had accepted the transfusion and still died, i would've held the driver responsible for her death; she doesn't, and suddenly s/he's only guilty of harming her?

I suppose my problem is that refusing the transfusion killed her, but it was the driver who put her in the situation where she would need one.

I think that it is her own problem. The driver (who is not innocent) should not have to suffer for the woman being a nut.

The driver should be held responsible for her death. This is assuming that the driver drove carelessly and hence killed the victim. If the driver was drunk but the jehovah witness was being careless, the driver should be charged with drink driving and that's it. However, it may be quite hard to determine which of these were true. So, if we assume that it was the driver's bad driving that caused the accident, then that person should be held responsible for her death. A jehovah witness should not be in a position to choose a transfusion if it is against her religious principles. She died as a result and the blame should be entirely on the driver. However, if the driver wasn't drunk, then it would be a different matter

I do not agree with any sentiment that someone should set aside their convictions simply because it is expedient to others.

This is the classic definition of manslaughter: "battery that results in death", but not necessarily battery that would ordinarily be expected to result in death. It's specifically intended to include cases where the victim died because of some weakness unknown to the batterer. Louise Woodward was (eventually) convicted of this and was sentenced to time served (which was something like nine months). Personally I think nine months is pretty light for vehicular assault while intoxicated even if it weren't manslaughter, and if I were a judge I'd sentence the driver to some serious time for the drunk driving and a concurrent term for the manslaughter.

I trust anything legal that phi says

I lost the grammar star so soon?

muhaha I have you in my clutches now hillbilly

the driver is responsible for hitting the woman. he is responsible for harming the woman. if she had died before medics arrived then he would be responsible for killing the woman. however, medics did arrive, she was given an option and refused the treatment. she is responsible for that decision.
I am all in favor of harsh penalties for drunk drivers, and if the penalty was worse because of the woman's decision, it wouldn't upset me. then again, I would be in favor of public flogging or re-introducing the stocks for drunk driving.

elijahblue: did you make an anonymous comment while you had it so that for some reason it thinks anonymous should have it all the time?

wow...what a thought provoking survey...almost so much that i didn't want to touch it...ya know...good survey

i'm gonna make it cut and dry, because i could spend all day riding the fence on this one...the drunk driver is wrong...he is liable for assault on the women, or whatever the charge is for injury due to driving under the influence...

if the women accepts the transfusion and dies...he should receive maximum penalty...(that's just my own discord of driving drunk)

if she refuses (this is where i hit a wall)...i say she is, in a way, signing a waiver which leaves the offender not liable for the manslaughter or unlawful death charge...again, this is my opinion...

reality: nope, bill just decided to give the grammar star to anonymous.

I feel strongly the the driver has to be held accountable for his actions. No matter which way you look at it the drive directly caused the woman's death. Without his actions she would be alive. The way some of you responded I could be mugged and shot in the head. If I had a no resuscitate order and died the murder should be let off. I don't think so.

jdbruce...would you refuse to be resuscitated?

that was joke by the way :)

jdbruce: I am not saying the driver should be let off, but I don't feel he should have to deal with manslaughter charges if the person refuses treatment. that is a decision the person made. the driver should still be penalized (see above for what I feel is reasonable).

but reality, the question states that even if she had received the blood transfusion, she still had an estimated 20% chance of dying. So perhaps she truly is dying only from being hit and not from refusing the transfusion.

good point EB..see, that's what i was talking about...sometimes you guys/gals make me question, or make me see another side of things...i like the interaction...quite eye-opening

elijahblue: if she accepted treatment and still died, then I would agree with manslaughter charges. my biggest issue was the person refusing treatment. I still think drunk drivers should be flogged.. (no, I am not joking about that part)
it falls into my view of personal responsibility. you cause an accident or hit someone, you face the consequences. if the person that you damaged chooses (their responsibility) to do something that lessens their own chance of survival, you aren't responsible for that. if all that could be done was done and they still die, you bear the full brunt.
what if the person had merely been paralyzed? should we be thankful? the driver still owns the responsibility... it is whether or not he faces manslaughter as well as the drunk driving charges.

cool question. The stats make it harder to answer, though.
For reference: If her chance of living had been identical with and without the transfusion (that is, a 0% difference), I'd say the driver unambiguously killed her. If she had a 0% chance of living without it and a 100% chance with it (that is, a 100% difference), I'd say he hurt but didn't kill her, and she then took the opportunity to kill herself.
Given a 60%+ difference, I lean towards "he didn't kill her" but I'm queasy about it.
Whether the reasons are religious or not, and her general attitude towards medical treatment, matters not at all in this context.

very interesting question, and good choices. I have a hard time convincing myself that the drunk driver is responsible for her death. How do the courts deal with these things??? agh.

I think the driver should be punished for driving under the influence, but not for harming the woman. It was her choice to put her religious beliefs ahead of her medical interests. I would say that it was the driver's fault if she accepted the transfusion and died, but since she chose to put her life in more danger...the driver should not be held accountable for her choice.

NOT for harming her? Please tell me you meant to write 'not for KILLING the woman'

Anonymous>> The reason why I said that is because one of the options on the survey is "The driver is guilty of harming the woman only". I definitely don't think the driver is guilty of killing the woman. It was a tough question, and if I had held him accountable for anything, it would only be that he hit her, not manslaughter. That is why I said "HARM". So sorry to burst your bubble, but I meant what I said.

I'm also wondering what in the world you're talking about...You don't think harm was done when the driver *hit* the woman? I'm confused

I think the second the woman made the decision not to have the transfusion, she was taking responsibility for her own death. The driver can not be punished for a decision that he did not make.

I would also agree that I would not hold the driver guilty for her death, but definitely the driver was responsible for *harming* her. Do we have different definitions of harm? I'm so confused.

Pandora> If the driver is responsible for anything besides DUI, I'd say at the most it would be for reckless op., not for harming or killing. Her death is purely her own responsibility. What I'm confused about is if we're talking about what judgment the courts would or pass, or what judgment we would pass if we were in the position to do so.

I'm not saying her DEATH is the driver's fault. I just can't understand how you think that the driver isn't guilty of hurting her in any way...is there anyone else out there who understands what I'm saying? I can't explain it any better at the moment.. SO frustrating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they: I think what Pandora is trying to get across is that harming is the same as hurting, but not necessarily the same as killing. The question states that the accident hurt the woman, so that is the same as saying that the woman was harmed by the accident.

Yes! Thank you.

If she had accepted the transfusion, and died then he would be guilty.

I find it difficult to believe that a person 80% likely to die without a transfusion would be in any kind of condition to refuse it. The driver is 80% guilty of killing her, because she had only a 20% chance to live, and she is 80% guilty of killing herself, because she had only a 20% chance to die if she had taken the transfusion. How many angels...

jgg wrote:

What is the likelihood of the accident having occurred if the driver were sober?

Less, of course. What would have been the likelihood of the accident had she stayed home? Zero. So perhaps this argument isn't the way.

eris wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that a person 80% likely to die without a transfusion would be in any kind of condition to refuse it.

True, but she could have made her preferences known ahead of time to friends, relatives, and doctors, and even worn a Medic Alert tag,

I think we're all making a mistake when looking at the numbers, because only some of them are shown. By refusing treatment, she lowered her expected chances of survival from 80% to 20% -- given that she'd already been hit by a truck.

Perhaps more relevant would be to look at what the driver did. We don't know what her chances of survival would have been had she not been hit by a truck, but it's probably safe to assume they were quite high. Given what she was prepared to do to prolong her own life, her chances of surviving (through the next month, say) were reduced by the driver from nearly 100% to 20%.

I'd like to think it's reasonable to expect people to seek medical care (and to accept it when available), and to accept responsibility for not doing so, if they choose, for whatever reason, not to do so. But we all have limits. Some people would die before renouncing their religion, or their country, or their politics. Some would rather die than live in constant physical pain. Some might prefer to end their own life than to take someone else's.

Personally, I'd have taken the transfusion, because life after transfusion would be worth living to me. To her it would not. It's a decision she made before the driver hit her, and it's entirely his fault that she was put into a position where that choice mattered.

I think we can make absurd examples at both extremes. I could refuse to save my own life if doing so doomed the entire earth to fiery destruction. Someone else might decide that if anyone calls them "Joe Bob" one more time, they will stop eating. So apparently, we can accept some justifications for someone choosing their own death over some alternative and still not call it suicide, but others are right out.

Drunk driving is never an accident, and hitting someone is just a matter of time. The driver didn't intend to kill anyone, but he did intend to drive drunk. Whether the victim died or not has little to do with the driver. Every time someone drives drunk, it's attempted murder. Often a poor and failed attempt, and usually done out of disregard and hubris rather than malice, but it's a good try nonetheless.

The justice system in the US is pretty complicated. We consider both result and intent. I don't know how I'd judge this case, but I'm glad I don't have to.

I am completely unable to come to any kind of a decision on this one. Good thing I'm not a judge, I guess. wow. hmmm.

I'm a bit surprised with how much religious intolerance I've just read here. One of the aspects of this question that makes it difficult for me is that my own spiritual beliefs have nothing much to do with medicine, and I can't image having a spiritual objection to a medical procedure, so it's hard for me to understand the victim's position.

I'm rather surprised by how easy it seems to be to write off her convictions.

topper - I have little respect for the "spiritual convictions" of the Jonestown victims as well.

topper: her convictions were what made up my mind. she made a decision based on her beliefs.. that removes some (not a lot mind you) of the guilt from the driver for her death. the driver is not at fault for her beliefs..

Topper, I think the prevailing attitude about it is that you can believe whatever you want, but that's not anyone else's problem. I don't think that's intolerance.

In regard to eris's comment about the woman being, "in any kind of condition to refuse it", I would just like to state that every Jehovah's Witness carries with him/her a "No Blood" card, signed by himself/herself and two witnesses ("witnesses" in the legal sense, although they're usually also "Witnesses"). My personal opinion is that the JW's belief in abstaining from blood is hypocritical and unfounded scripturally, however in this case because there was a significant chance that the woman would have died even with the blood, I feel that the drunk driver is responsible for her death. If he had not driven intoxicated, the woman would not have been put in the position to have to choose.

Her death was the result of being hit and her living was not assured. Guilty. Extra time, perhaps 20% of the maximum.

Interesting question. The fact she was a Jehovah's Witness and therefore refuses blood transfusions is not the fault of the driver,
but he is still guilty of the crime. Same punishment as killing someone when driving drunk.

If he had hit her before blood transfusions were available....she would have died and he would have been
responsible....
She would not have been in the situation in the first place if not for him hitting her...he is liable