I read the article referred to by nimbin and looking between the lines it appears that the obstetricians waited too long to perform a caesarean. I have have had close at hand experience of how drs pressure people to make a choice that they (drs) believe is the right one. You can see the whole story isn't in the article because the 10th paragraph says "But the baby died, and shortly afterwards the woman suffered a stroke and multi-organ failure, ..."
It takes a while to die from multi-organ failure. They may have waited for her to give in to a blood transfusion and left it too late to get the baby out. Note the comment, " But the baby died, .." they got the baby out before the woman died. This means the baby was alive while they waited for her to give in to pressure to have a transfusion.
Also, they would know that she would have succumbed to total organ (multi) failure well in advance of it occurring. They do constant tests to figure how matters out.Possibly the woman was going to die no matter what from the cancer. Therefore the drs could have made another choice.
What they should have done was offer the caesarean well in advance. The pregnancy was well along at 7 months , so at 6 months they would have had a baby that was 24 weeks minimum. That is a viable preterm survival age, and the mother could have survived to see her child and be given treatment that may have been withheld because of her pregnancy. They seem to blame the fact that they couldn't give a blood transfusion, but the woman could have survived that with proper surgical care. But if it was inevitable that she was going to die then they might have saved the baby at least.
I question the statement saying 'a decision that will hasten death'. Every witness I know wants to do everything they can to keep living, because taking an indifferent attitude towards life is against Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs based on the Bible, especially when they are carrying an unborn child. However they will not compromise what the scriptures say about the use of blood. As for blood it isn't safe as the hype says. It is really an organ transplant. Blood can carry diseases that are undetectable. HIV for example (last time I checked) still cannot be detected at the very early stages.
The child and possibly the mother could have been saved had foresight been given a fair go and prejudice be done away with. I have included a link here (hope it works) about a WA hospital offering bloodless surgery. They don't consider blood to be all that safe.
Lots of hospitals and drs worldwide have learned a great deal from Jehovah's witnesses firm stand on the issue of blood. Why not check the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses at jw.org. I am sure you will find there is more to this story than is offered by the media and medical journals.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/9123230/wa-pioneers-bloodless-surgery/
Hoping for fairer articles
Pete
