A London court has upheld a mentally-ill sex offender's right to refuse blood
A London court has upheld a mentally-ill sex offender’s right to refuse blood

A judge in London has upheld a decision by NHS lawyers that a mentally-ill sex offender should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion on the basis of his Jehovah’s Witness faith.

The 23-year-old prisoner, who has not been named, is being treated by Nottinghamshire Healthcare (NHS). While serving a five-year sentence for sexual assault, he had sustained a severe amount of blood loss after a self-harming incident that resulted in an open artery.

According to doctors, the man’s hemoglobin levels had fallen to an “extremely life-threatening level.” When doctors advised him he needed blood treatment the man refused due to adherence to Watchtower doctrine.

Though the man is being held in a mental health facility and has been described as having a “severe personality disorder” and a history of self-harm, lawyers for the NHS deemed him capable of making this choice and decided not to administer the transfusion against his will.

It has been decided that the state will not be held accountable for any future complications regarding this decision, even if it leads to the man’s death.

The patient adopted the Jehovah’s Witness faith only eight months ago and has decided to follow its teachings in this case. The man’s father, also a Jehovah’s Witness, has sided with his son, asking that his wishes be “respected.”

A source of much debate

Over the years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have come under much scrutiny when it comes to their approach towards blood transfusions. Multitudes of devout Witnesses have suffered and even died due to this doctrine.

Oftentimes the casualties have been children. But many cases have been recently publicized in which the Witness parents’ wishes have been ignored and the state has ordered life-saving treatment regardless.

This case offers a similar dilemma, since the man in question, although a recently-converted Witness, has been found to have severe mental illness. His condition raised questions as to whether he was of sound mind and therefore able to make such grave decisions. But the authorities have decided that indeed he was.

At the time of this article, no further news on the man’s condition or case has been released.

 

jeni-signature2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Related video…

22 thoughts on “London court rules in favor of transfusion refusal

  • April 27, 2014 at 5:04 am
    Permalink

    Freedom is anxiety.

    We must wrestle with the morality of choice. The key point here is the man’s age. He is above the age of majority, and he has the right to refuse treatment if he so chooses.

    I am sure that the NHS has evaluated this case carefully, and they have decided that he is in sound mind, despite his obvious mental health problems.

    Ideally, I would like to see this man accept any treatment that can prolong his life, but freedom of choice can lead to bad choices being made.

    We need to redouble our efforts to cast down the erroneous interpretation of bible verses in regard to the use of blood that the WTBTS espouses.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  • April 27, 2014 at 5:34 am
    Permalink

    What do you think would happen if these women were raped as a punishment PLANNED by Jehovah and found themselves in need transfusion of transfusion after bleeding? Would they say no to transfusion saying “we re Jehovah’s Witnesses”?

    (2 Samuel 12:11, 12) . . .This is what Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am raising up against you calamity out of your own house; and I will take your wives under your own eyes and give them to your fellowman, and he will certainly lie down with your wives under the eyes of this sun. 12 Whereas you yourself acted in secret, I, for my part, shall do this thing in front of all Israel and in front of the sun.’”

  • April 27, 2014 at 11:08 am
    Permalink

    Good Day Jeni, first of all let me say this.
    A Doctrine is universally defined as:
    1. a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief; dogma
    2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated
    So with that thought in mind what the Jehovah’s Witnesses are teaching is their own religious Dogma based on their own reasoning’s.
    So when one does a thorough research of all bible scriptures without any interpretation from a religious group of men dealing with the subject of blood and its use, It is without question that it was only in relation to the blood of a animal and the eating or ingestion of it into a human body. PERIOD!!!! Enough said!
    Folks read your bible not man made magazines advocating their interpretations and made Doctrines!!!
    Great Job Jeni keep them coming. Thank You

  • April 27, 2014 at 11:38 am
    Permalink

    As far I am concern no other religion besides Watchtowerians accept blood transfusions. But this was not until Judge Rutherford realized that it was a must according to his “scripture interpretation”. Correct me if I am wrong!!!!

  • April 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm
    Permalink

    So here they have a 23-year old JW who has been described as a mentally ill sex offender serving a five-year who also has a severe personality disorder.

    Although having only been a JW for a matter of months he sounds like a ideal candidate for being a replacement GB member, although being he is aware of his condition perhaps in some degree of remorse for his prior actions he has actively chosen a way out for himself?? (The Adjustment Bureau – 2011)

    For the rest of us it seems a simple equation to make.
    That if human blood really is sacred then what more sacred use could it be put to than saving someone’s life, perhaps in dire circumstances ones own life??

    As much as we might wish the circumstances were different he does have the God given right of free will, even if that will is driven only by his/our own flawed, hopes aims and ambitions.

    It’s difficult enough trying to even state the case, even more difficult to work out a good solution in this guys case.
    All I can say is God help him.
    In the evident chaos of his/our minds perhaps only the Holy Spirit could open the door for him and set him Free.

    ‘I fought with my Twin, that enemy within,
    Til both of us fell by the way.
    Horse plague and disease is killing me by degrees,
    While the Law looks the other way.’

    HELP! ….!

  • April 27, 2014 at 6:01 pm
    Permalink

    So,a sick mind,( pedophile) comes to the conclusion that to take a blood transfusion would be wrong.Why should that surprise us?

  • April 28, 2014 at 3:18 am
    Permalink

    Michael,

    There is no chaos in my mind. I have no need of an unproven, mystical energy to aid me in reaching my opinion.

    This is an issue of free choice. This man has been deemed of sound enough mind to make a choice. He has every right to accept or refuse any medical treatment.

    I deplore his choice, and the religion that has completely misunderstood the bible’s reference to the use of animal blood and its ingestion.

    With the desire to keep things accurate, referring to this man as a paedophile is going beyond the information we are given in the articles. None of the reports mention the age of the victim(s). He may be a paedophile, or he may not be. He is certainly guilty of sexual assault.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

    • April 28, 2014 at 11:54 am
      Permalink

      Well said Excelsior.

  • April 28, 2014 at 5:45 am
    Permalink

    Excelsior,

    Amen to that Brother,

    Peace be with you also.

  • April 28, 2014 at 7:47 am
    Permalink

    They say if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it…..

    However, I am completely unmoved to offer any shred of sympathy for this person. He can follow WT laws to the T on not accepting a transfusion. But when it comes to the laws of the land and basic human morality, he can’t keep his hands to himself? Clearly this person was raised at some level in the trruuuuth as the story points out his father is a JW. Just more evidence of JW sexual predators.

  • April 28, 2014 at 10:02 am
    Permalink

    …. you make a good point !

  • April 28, 2014 at 4:28 pm
    Permalink

    I think the judge might have thought it a good way to get rid of this predator without actually killing the guy himself.

  • April 29, 2014 at 4:27 am
    Permalink

    Patrice,

    I think the Judge would be offended by your comment. I know I am.

    Equality before the Law is a fundamental human right. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

    We do not have the death penalty in the UK. No UK Judge would make a decision the way you describe.

    I am not apologising for this man. He committed a serious and disgusting crime. He is serving a custodial sentence for his offence(s). However, this “string ’em up and let God sort it all out” mentality is dangerous.

    Where do we stop? If we start by killing sex offenders, who’s next? The ends NEVER justify the means. Any honest examination of history and jurisprudence tells us so.

    I share your disgust for what this man has done. I really do. I make no apologies for criminals, believe me.

    So please, folks, don’t become a monster in response to the monsters. We must keep Justice open and fair. The consequences if we don’t are grave indeed. We do not want mob justice and vigilantes. A lot of innocent people will die if we go down that route.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  • April 29, 2014 at 5:29 am
    Permalink

    Hear Hear, Excelsior:

    In the UK, our Queen has just given pardon (correct the word if I have got it wrong) to Alan Turing.

    A man, famous for his code breaking and deciphering during the second world war. Because of him, and others, millions of lives were spared.

    Yet, because of his Homosexual orientation he faced Chemical castration and rejection. He committed suicide as a result.

    What a shameful way to treat a hero!

    I hope readers of this forum will have the good grace to accord some humanity and let the facts be presented before Tar and Feathering any individual

    GEM

  • April 29, 2014 at 7:16 am
    Permalink

    Perhaps I should have put ‘lol’ at the end of my comment.
    I didn’t think it would be taken quite so seriously. I am offended by your attack. In fact it has left me feeling exetremly upset. I am not a monster. But I am a silent lamb.
    I do have to ask you though how you know that no judge would make this decision.

  • April 29, 2014 at 10:17 am
    Permalink

    Patrice,

    I am sorry that my reply upset you. You did not follow the conventions of written language, and make it clear that you were being sarcastic. Perhaps if you had added some exclamation marks, I would not have read you comments as serious.

    I stand by the principles that I espoused.

    I am deeply sorry that you have suffered harm at the hands of a truly appalling person. It does not follow that the principles of justice should be abandoned and replaced by judgement by personal opinions, the media or the understandable pain and anger of a victim of a similar, horrendous attack.

    Justice must be fair and open. The principle of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of one’s peers is vital for a free and fair society. Without it there is only anger and vengeance. Neither of these have ever solved anything.

    I unreservedly apologise for hurting your feelings. I am and was only espousing Justice and equality before the Law.

    As to your final question, I agree that I cannot read the mind of this or any Judge. However, I do know that any Judge will have had long exposure to some of the most reprehensible individuals in our society. He or she will have practiced as a Solicitor and as a QC. By the time that they have become a Judge, they will have been able to obtain a level of professional distance from the cases they are involved in. I doubt that any Judge would want to pass judgement in hope of an outcome as you describe. This criminal is already serving his sentence. The law has already won.

    In conclusion, I am glad that you do not truly feel as you originally posted. In my defence, I am not the only poster here who interpreted your comments as serious.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  • April 29, 2014 at 10:14 pm
    Permalink

    First off Jeni,

    What a a pleasant smile you have and thanks for the article.

    Second, I truly believe any person, animal or being has the right to choose no matter how ill informed they are. That being said, I do enjoy everyone’s posts here and the freedom that we all have to express ourselves. While at times our viewpoint differs, I am glad that most people accord others respect and the tenor of the discussion is building an appreciation for the ability to think and reason.

    Well done everyone! and thanks for giving thought to your comments they are read and enjoyed!

  • April 30, 2014 at 1:40 am
    Permalink

    One more question. Are you admin because your seem to comment an awful lot.

  • April 30, 2014 at 4:15 am
    Permalink

    So much hostility just because the guy is a …… CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER come on now people, show a little love, sex offenders have rights too. If he wants to refuse necessary medical treatment based on belief in a doctrine brought to you by the same organisation who wrote a letter of support to Adolf Hitler in 1933, and preached that immunisation is evil and that aluminum cookware causes cancer, then why not. Just be thankful that he is locked up in jail for the next five years and not out there mingling with unsuspecting brothers and sisters and their children.

  • April 30, 2014 at 5:02 am
    Permalink

    Patrice,

    Was your question addressed to me? You have not made it clear who you are asking the question of.

    I have no official place in the running of this site. I do not serve as an admin (Jeni is the admin here).

    I comment frequently as I see it as my way of helping all the many people who have suffered harm at the hands of the WTBTS. My goal is to aid open, honest and polite debate on the articles published here.

    I hope that answers your question.

    An additional response to your previous post. If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I never called you a monster. That particular paragraph was addressed to the group as a whole, as I used the group noun “folks”.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  • May 1, 2014 at 5:53 am
    Permalink

    This offender is clearly suicidal, I don’t think he really cares about God rules at this moment in his life. He is locked up and dealing with the consequences of his sex offences every day.

    He is probably dealing with feelings of guilt constantly and likely depression as he cut an artery.

    IMO he is trying to get forgiveness from God for what he has done by refusing blood, but it’s purely a selfish thing. He wants to feel better about his offences.

    I am surprised the court did not order him to have blood, as he has shown disregard for his life.

    I can understand how victims would feel about this and want the prisoner to die so he can never harm anyone again.

    Thanks for the article
    Kate xx

  • June 6, 2014 at 4:01 am
    Permalink

    well theres a way out of doing things!
    claim a religion.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: