‘She put the baby first each and every time’: Family defend pregnant Jehovah’s Witness who died with her baby after refusing blood transfusion, chemotherapy and C-section due to religious beliefs

• Jenny-Lee and unborn baby Aroura died after refusing a blood transfusion
• The 28-year-old suffered from leukaemia but refused treatment 
• Over 80 per cent of treated pregnant leukaemia sufferers go into remission
• Her family have spoken out to defend the mother, saying she was told she had six weeks to live and chose to give up her life for her unborn daughter
• Doctors and staff have described the distressing scene after the baby died and the woman suffered a fatal stroke and multi-organ failure

The family of a heavily pregnant Jehovah’s Witness who died along with her baby after she refused a blood transfusion, have defended the woman who they said had put her baby’s life above her own.

Jenny-Lee, 28, was diagnosed with leukaemia seven months into her pregnancy, and although doctors at Sydney’s Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick told her she could give birth via a caesarean section and undergo chemotherapy, she refused both options as they required her to receive a blood transfusion.

However her mother Heather has told The Daily Telegraph that her daughter believed the cancer treatment would harm her unborn child, named Aroura.

‘She knew chemo would kill Aroura — she put the baby first each and every time and no matter what happened, she wanted that baby alive,’ Heather said.

‘We were told she would have six weeks to live — she fought to have the baby. That’s the decision she made — she gave up her life.’

Instead she blamed local doctors for her daughter’s unnecessary death, claiming they should have tested her for the cancer sooner, but instead only attributed her symptoms to the flu and her pregnancy.

The Sydney mother’s baby died in utero three days after she was offered a caesarean. She had a stillbirth and died 13 days after her diagnosis by suffering a stroke and multi-organ failure. 

Jenny-Lee’s elder daughter Chelsie, who was only 10 when her mother died in August 2009, also defended her mother.

However the 28-year-old’s brother David blamed the religion for how his sister died, calling her a ‘fool’.

‘It was not my sister who was sad and selfish, it is this religion and any other teaching this sort of nonsense,’ he said.

Her treating haematologist at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick, Dr Giselle Kidson-Gerber, said the mother understood the risks of her refusal to accept blood.

‘Her refusal to receive a blood transfusion meant that we were unable to perform a caesarean section and to deliver the foetus,’ Dr Kidson-Gerber told Daily Mail Australia.

‘Obviously it’s a very big ethical issue. Legally in Australia the mother has the right to make decisions on her behalf and her foetus’s behalf.

‘Most mothers would make decisions in favour of the unborn baby and this was a decision that was not in favour of the unborn baby.’

Dr Kidson-Gerber added: ‘If we were to give chemotherapy without blood transfusion support she surely would have died.’

Hospital staff were ‘distressed’ over what were perceived to be two avoidable deaths, as 83 percent of pregnant leukaemia sufferers go into remission with treatment.

Dr Kidson-Gerber said it was a challenge to respect a patient who refuses life-saving treatment.

‘It was sad. I think that I did my best to help her. But ultimately I couldn’t change the course of events,’ she said. 

In a recent article published in the Internal Medicine Journal about the 2009 case, Dr Kidson-Gerber and her colleague Dr Amber Biscoe wrote: ‘Not administering blood products in this case undoubtedly contributed to the death of mother and foetus.

‘Refusal of a lifesaving intervention by an informed patient is generally well respected, but the rights of a mother to refuse such interventions on behalf of her foetus is more controversial.’

Sascha Callaghan, an expert in ethics and law at the University of Sydney said the current law allows the mother to make decisions that would directly affect her unborn baby, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

She said Jehovah’s Witnesses are often condemned for their beliefs, especially in relation to their stance against blood transfusions.

‘This woman has a long-held commitment to the Jehovah’s Witness faith and that’s how she chose to die,’ she told the Herald.

‘When your foetus is in utero, it is inextricably tied to your life.’ 

Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe the Bible commands them to abstain from ingesting blood and that avoiding blood pays respect to God as the giver of life.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk