A YOUNG Jehovah's Witness died after a roller-blading accident because her family refused to let her have a blood transfusion, an inquest heard yesterday.
A doctor said he pleaded with her family to allow her a transfusion, which would have given her a 90% chance of survival.
Miss Emelie Grootjes, 19, broke both legs after she lost control of her skates going down a hill on July 31. Miss Grootjes, a Dutch student, had been on holiday at the Lockley Park caravan park in Hamworthy, Dorset, with her mother, father, brother, and sister, all Jehovah's Witnesses.
The inquest at Bournemouth was told that she was taken to Poole General Hospital, where she died from an embolism five days later.
Coroner Nigel Neville-Jones heard that fat and marrow from her shattered bones had entered her blood system before silting up in her lungs and finally killing her.
Dr Charles Blakeway, a consultant surgeon, described a complicated two-hour operation designed to bind the girl's legs and stop further fat getting into her bloodstream.
He said: ``We would normally give a transfusion straight away.
``The transfusion was refused from the outset because she was a Jehovah's Witness. If consent is declined then we are stuck.''
The next day he noticed problems with Miss Grootjes, and her lungs began to deteriorate. She died later in intensive care.
``The refusal of the blood transfusion contributed to her death, in my opinion.''
Dr Barry Newman, head of the intensive care unit, said: ``Somebody as young and fit as her, if she had received all the therapies we could give, then I would have given her chances as 90%.''
Her father, Mr Cornelius Grootjes, from Schogen in northern Holland, said: ``We accept other treatment but not blood or blood products.
``I think the situation with blood is not so black or white as it looks. I think the doctors did all they could and I am very happy with all that they did.''
Mr Neville-Jones, upholding the right of the individual as ``paramount'', recorded a verdict that she died as the result of an accident ``the consequences of which were contributed by the refusal of blood transfusions on religious grounds''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article