B.C. seizes surviving sextuplets

[auntAgonist]

VANCOUVER - The Jehovah's Witness parents of the four surviving sextuplets born in B.C. Women and Children's Hospital are accusing the B.C. Ministry of Children and Families of violating their parental rights by seizing three of their children in order to administer blood transfusions.

A lawyer for the parents appeared in B.C. Supreme Court Wednesday ready to appeal the ministry's decision to seize the children -only to find the ministry had withdrawn the order and returned the children back to the parents' care.

The babies, who were born prematurely, are still being cared for in hospital. However, two of three children seized over the weekend have received blood transfusions, a medical procedure that is opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses as it offends their religious beliefs.

Ontario lawyer Shane Brady, who represents the family, said the ministry's actions were "a gross violation" of the parent's constitutional rights and he will be back in B.C. Supreme Court for a hearing on the issue Feb. 23.

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=cc7f44d0-a743-4186-9f71-7cda369c419d&k=53804
--------

Ethicist says B.C. blood feud may save children and Jehovah's Witness parents

The parents, who risk being shunned for life by the church because their children received the transfusions, can now plead they abided by the blood ban, but couldn't stop the government, she said.

"They can hold their head up among the Jehovah's Witness community and say, 'We protested, we went to court."'

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. faith meets science and science loses.

Jehovah's would not dare investigate WHY transfusions were deemed improper in historical times (medical practitioners in ye olde daze knew nothing of RH factors, making tranfusions hit and miss) but would rather wallow in willful ignorance.

[WinkyDink]

I don't think religion should pre-empt saving a minor's life.

Blood transfusions, needed abortions, whatever--if it is clearly not the minor's own decision (like the 16-yr-old boy who refused cancer treatments).

[Zhade]

74. Agreed. The children shouldn't pay the price for their parents' religious insanity.

NT!

[Lance_Boyle]

2. withholding care in the name of religion is insane

this is *not* an ethical dilemma. Reason and medical ethics are in agreement on this issue - save the children, damn the gods.

[scorpiogirl]

3. Dead children are ok as long as they can hold their heads

up in church. The idiocy of these parents is unbelieveable.

[Swamp Rat]

4. The parents need brain transfusions

:eyes:

[MyNameGoesHere]

5. I do not know what to say

On the one hand we do not want relig o'nuts interfering in our lives but on the other hand the lives of these children are at risk. so is it ok for us to interfere in their beliefs? I just do not know. They may be ignorant and weird but still i have problems interfering in what they believe in. Just as most here would pitch a fit if they tried to force you to their beliefs.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. the law interferes on a whole bunch of levels, from

traffic lights to manditory vaccinations; from curfews to minimal ages for alcohol consumption.

This is no different than those many steps of which we all take for granted.

[MyNameGoesHere]

7. perhaps

but to my knowledge no religions worship running red lights. I did not say i wouldn't do it but i just wonder if i have a right to tell someone how to practice their religion.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. I will start the Church of Running Red Lights just as soon as

my Church of Ineffable Stupidity is recognized.

But, let's take vaccinations. Once you get past the issue of mercury based preservatives, there is 99% agreement that vaccinations have done more to improve children's health than almost anything except clean water supplies. Yet, some religions think that vaccines are toying with god's intent and refuse to have their kids get that protection. Those are pretty much the same assholes who thing that a vaccine for cervical cancer causes premarital sex.

Logic is not their strong point.

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. haha

you could get a lot of worshipers the way people drive here. I got your point , and i understand and agree somewhat. Just saying for me i find it distasteful and slightly hypocritical for me to tell anyone what to do with regards to their religious or moral beliefs.

[progressivebydesign]

16. The point is someone can call anything their beliefs...

There are thousands of atrocities committed under the name of someone's religion beliefs. they are an illusion, they are fantasy, they're just something people tell themselves or their parents told them. Someone who "believes" that God told them to kill other people, does not make it okay.

The courts are right to get the care for these innocent children who have NOT chosen a belief, they just want to live. The parents may believe something, but the children are still undecided at that infantile stage, so the parents should not be allowed to let them die for THEIR OWN beliefs.

Religions great if someone feels they need that sort of thing... but just because your particular beliefs seem to be benign, does not change the dangerous beliefs of others.

And I believe the Church of Running Stop Signs is already practicing in my area...

[MyNameGoesHere]

25. True

All i am saying is this. Do i have a right to condemn or override religious beliefs of another no matter how repugnant i find it? I do not know the answer, and it makes me uncomfortable to think i should or could have that power.

[LostinVA]

35. Yes, you do, if minors are concerned

[MyNameGoesHere]

36. Alright!

somehow you giving me permission just don't help with my thoughts.

[LostinVA]

39. Why the sarcasm -- and when did I said I was "giving you permission"

Geez.

[Richard Steele]

49. I'm glad to see it's not just me.

I had a similar reaction to my interaction with our
fellow DUer from WV, just a few posts down.

From the number of his responses to this thread, it's clear
he feels fairly strongly about this issue. But after READING
all those responses, I'm really not sure just exactly WHAT
it is that he feels so strongly.

[LostinVA]

50. Yes, I agree with you

Very strange.

[MyNameGoesHere]

60. Haha

I am asking questions because i am torn on this issue. this is an extreme case but where is the line drawn? you all have been very insightful with very few snide remarks many thanks.

[MyNameGoesHere]

53. It just seemed like

you were the authority on it or something. Like "So let it be written, So let it be done" <Ok you have to think of that moses movie for that to make sense>

[KamaAina]

24. Blatant religious discrimination!

This church of yours apparently has no place for the millions of Americans, and billions of others worldwide, who do not drive automobiles. And what about the Hawaiian island of Moloka'i, where there are no traffic lights?

See you in court, pal! :P :sarcasm:

[MyNameGoesHere]

26. we offer

church of stopping at green lights also. Or if you prefer the church of driving backwards ha!

[scorpiogirl]

12. If someone's religion requires that they not provide life-saving

medical care for their children, then they are not thinking clearly and someone must intervene.

[MyNameGoesHere]

14. But really you have no proof

that they are not thinking clearly. You see religion, children, no transfusion and assume they have not thought this out and made a decision based on belief. If you know them personally i apologize, you may have a clearer insight about them than me.

[mondo joe]

19. The thing is that the children have rights too.

I think if you want to deny a transfusion for yourself, you have the right to do that.

The babies have no say in what their parents do, but the state has a legitimate interest in protecting their rights.

[scorpiogirl]

20. No, I don't know them, but I am a mother

I believe a parent's most important job is to protect their children. If their children's death is less important than what the church thinks, no they definitely can't be thinking clearly. Their lawyer clearly stated that they would be able to "hold their heads up" in church because the decision was taken out of their hands. That, to me, indicates that the church is more important than their children's physical well-being.

[MyNameGoesHere]

21. Sure that is the teaching

and beliefs of millions of people. The Deity and religion is held higher than the family. Nothing new there. Now for you and your beliefs that is what you want, the question is "When do you or I have the right to interfere in religious beliefs"? What makes it ok and by whose standards?

[scorpiogirl]

27. I think I answered you already,

as did some other posters. But I'll give it another shot. A parent should never force their beliefs on their children if it means they will die. How about that? Go to church as much as you want. I just don't see how inflicting one's children with death or suffering would ever be considered worshipping any god. But that's just me.

[MyNameGoesHere]

55. I am sorry you felt

i needed an answer. I just was throwing out some misgivings and thoughts i have on this affair. I can tell from your post i seem a little dense and perhaps so. Just thinking a little too much today i suppose. I agree with your last couple sentence but with this caveat. I just wonder if i have a right to then bitch about them wanting to institute school prayer or ban gay marriage. Isn't it pretty much the same. Forcing moral or religious beliefs on another?

[mondo joe]

56. No - because it's about protecting rights, not forcing morals on

others.

If you can consent to decline a transfusin that is your right and no one should have the power to force you to take it.

But you don't have absolute authority to decide for someone else that they can die because you don't believe in transfusion.

[MyNameGoesHere]

59. Well yes and no

You do have the right to refuse treatment for your children until they take them away for that same right. No child can sign a consent form for a transfusion, unless the state takes them away and then the court is the guardian. I know you think i am an idiot but i just bring this up because where does it stop? When is it ok for the courts to get involved and when is it not? A native American tribe wanted to use peyote in a religious ceremony years back Nope can't do it. I bet you think the Native American tribe was right? Even though peyote is really a alkaloid poison. The government said it was a dangerous drug and they had no right hurting themselves. Was that right?
Where does it stop? In short this is what i believe, leave me the fuck alone and i will leave you alone. Your beliefs are of no concern to me. If you harm a child because of negligence that was tried in a court then you pay the price.
And i would never let my daughter receive a transfusion from anyone except her mom or me. If that caused her to die would you put me in jail or take away my other children? It is my right i am not refusing the transfusion but i will not let it come from a blood bank. <btw we have a family blood donation plan something i suggest for anyone with children or loved ones, ask your family doc>

[mondo joe]

61. Where does it stop?

Hopefully before this: "If you harm a child because of negligence that was tried in a court then you pay the price."

Do you have to wait for the child to die before stepping in?

Parents have considerable leeway in making decision for their custidial children. Neither that right, nor freedom of religion, gives them unlimited authority to place their children at risk.

[MyNameGoesHere]

63. Perhaps your right

Just i dont want to be the one making that decision, i basically think most parents try to do what they feel is right.

[Maat]

71. And I would certainly see that your wish to use your blood or ..

a family member's blood was honored. Then, you would be agreeing to the lifesaving treatment, and that would make everything o.k. That would be a condition easily honored.

When I was a social worker (I've since retired), I was assigned a case like this. I took the child into protective custody temporarily, and secured an order for the transfusion. The parents were obviously relieved. It was the grandparents that had been hammering on them. Aside from the situation at the hospital, they were great parents. Very shortly, the infant was returned to their custody on a family maintenace plan (The Department monitoring things for a bit). The court case was dismissed relatively quickly, with the parents being very cooperative about appropriate medical care. The transfusion aspect was a one-time thing.

I also had a strange case in which the father of an infant loved his infant daughter so much. He thought she was perfect, and refused to believe that she had a serious kidney problem. He told his wife in Spanish that he would admit her to the hospital, and then take her out. He wasn't aware that this worker spoke Spanish. I'm afraid we had to intervene temporarily then. He quickly came around and ended up being very competent in terms of her care.

So, hopefully, only temporary intervention will be needed here.

[Horse with no Name]

78. Speaking from professional experience

A hospital has a team of lawyers and the phone number of a judge at their disposal at any time--day or night.
I GUARANTEE that within 2 minutes of you refusing lifesaving treatment for your child...a judge will be hearing your case.
That is how it works.
And although your intentions are good...there is always the possibility that your blood might not match your child's. Sometimes rare antibodies are in blood making them incompatible. Would you let your child die if this were the case?
In an emergent situation...they do not have time to type and crossmatch family members.
And the answer to your question regarding taking your other children away..the answer is a resounding no unless of course there were other reasons involved. They are just seeking help for the ONE that you are endangering from your beliefs at the time. It doesn't make you a threat to the other children.

[scorpiogirl]

65. Separation of church and state.

I hardly think there is a parallel between gov't protecting children from neglectful parents acting in the name of religion and religious people wanting to foist their beliefs on those around them by adding prayer to school and banning gay marriage, abortion, etc. If people have such strong beliefs in their deity, then they shouldn't feel threatened by those who do not have the same beliefs. I'm a live and let live type of person, but neglect is neglect.

[Richard Steele]

28. When those beliefs are killing children, I have no problem "interfering" with them.

As an adult, I have the right to harm MYSELF for any
belief I might have, no matter how mistaken, misguided,
or just plain silly that belief may be.

I -DO NOT- have the right to harm ANYONE else for those beliefs.
Period. End of story.

[MyNameGoesHere]

37. works for you.

Just was voicing my concerns. I hope when the relig o' nuts enforce their beliefs on you you can accept that as well.

[Richard Steele]

44. What the HELL is that supposed to mean?

"I hope when the relig o' nuts enforce their beliefs on you you can accept that as well."

Huh? :wtf:

[MyNameGoesHere]

52. Isn't life a two way street?

If you are ok with usurping someones religious beliefs for your concerns of someone else's children then turn about is fair? yes?

See i believe they have tried to bombard us with their beliefs, school prayer, abortion, gay marriage. We have fought and resisted. We do not want our lives controlled by religious nuts. Rightly so. So why is it not their right to do the same?

Huh ? WTF? just asking

[mondo joe]

54. Have you ever heard of Child Protective Services (CPS)?

Did you think parents have absolute authority to do anything they want, without any regard for the rights of the children involved?

[MyNameGoesHere]

57. I am not sure.

Having a child I cannot ever see myself letting another outside authority control or influence over my child. Now granted i make sure she has wonderful medical and dental coverage and would never refuse something to save her life. But really i am not in the same position as those parents that believe in something totally different for their children. And i am sure they would fight just as much as i would for the right to raise them as they see fit. My children are mine to raise and care for as i see fit. I know this is a hot post about suffering children, something most consider precious but it is also about freedom of religion and pursuit of happiness.

[mondo joe]

58. Simple question: Do you believe parents have absolute and

unlimited authority over their children, no matter what they do?

If you answer yes - which means parents can molest or abuse their kids in any way - then you clearly do not believe the children themselves have any rights whatsoever (including to life or liberty).

If you answer no, you then concede that the state has the authority to intervene to save the lives of children even from their own parents.

[MyNameGoesHere]

62. Ok so it is black or white?

No room for gray? Ok then let's say the latter. Where is the line drawn and who is the "moral" authority and why should you or me trust them more?
parents have absolute guidance of their children big difference. And yes sometimes i have absolute authority. Sometimes they get to choose because i have nurtured them properly.

[mondo joe]

64. When it comes to life and death, yes,

It's not about morals - it's about RIGHTS.

And you don't have to trust them - that's the point, it's not up to you any more.

[MyNameGoesHere]

66. Ok so what are the parents rights?

There are serpent worshipers in Appalachia , if at the church a snake bites a child and child dies should the state take away the child?

[Horse with no Name]

80. "if at the church a snake bites a child and child dies"

should the state take away the child?

Why would the state take away a dead child?

[Zhade]

87. As a parent myself, I have to say - I fear for your child's safety.

You are unwilling, or unable, to see that forcing your religious beliefs on another - including children - is not acceptable.

[Richard Steele]

68. No. "Life" is a vast tapestry, with traffic following INFINITE headings simultaneously.

[progressivebydesign]

18. And.. it's the PARENT'S beliefs here, not the babies.

the babies may grow up to be Athiests, or Agnostics, or whatever. The flaw is that the parents are subjecting the kids to their OWN beliefs. I say the hospital should ask the newborns if they'd like to abstain from medical care because of their own beliefs.. if the newborns can't answer yes, then they should be treated.

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. Yes and i believe

we actually give parents the right to make decisions for their children. If this was about underage abortion and parental notification where would you stand in the context of this incident?

[mondo joe]

47. Parents obviously do not have unlimited say, or there'd be no such thing as

Child Protective Services.

[theHandpuppet]

9. What if one's faith demanded you sacrifice your firstborn on an altar?

Isn't that what these parents are doing? Sacrificing their own children so they can save face in their church? What kind of death cult would shun a family because their newborn had a life-saving transfusion?

[MyNameGoesHere]

13. I do not know

but my misgivings deal with exercising my beliefs on someone else. I do not think i have the right to tell them how to worship.And i believe just as much they have no right making me sacrifice my first born.

[theHandpuppet]

17. Well there are those who contend their faith demands...

... that children who misbehave should be beaten, gay children should be executed, girls should not be educated and children are the property of the parents to the point they can be doled out as sexual slaves. I'm just glad you don't work for a child welfare agency. "Live and let live" is a nice philosophy but it's the children who don't have any choice in these decisions.

[MyNameGoesHere]

67. I have been the ward

of these agencies and i am glad i do not work for them either.

[Maat]

72. I believe I understand how you feel, LibFromVV.

I, for one, was very careful to accord parents all of the rights, respect, and discretion that was humanly possible in the situation.

My sister is active as a social worker currently, and feels the same way.

No social services practitioner wants to show disrespect for a person's religious beliefs; however, one has to intervene to save a life. I believe that the right decision was made here.

I believe that the situation here resolved itself quickly, and the children have been (or will soon be) returned to the custody of their parents.

Fortunately, in these instances, the custody-removal situation is usually a temporary one.

I'm a parent (I adopted), and I certainly want my beliefs and control respected. It's a careful line CPS workers walk; and, you are right, most situations appeared 'gray' to me, not 'black' or 'white.'

With humans, things are nuanced.

[Zhade]

89. You don't know that CHILD SACRIFICE is unacceptable?

Who the hell ARE you?

[JNelson6563]

23. Look at it this way

Some religions are more like cults, such as the Witnesses. They get so steeped in their religious community that few things are as important than their standing in that community (i.e. many meetings a week and so many hours of "service" -- door to door book sales and flock recruitment -- required). Of course the powers that be within the Watchtower Printing Company (tax free status dontcha know) love to lay claim to each and every "martyr" it can claim so they can churn out more "encouraging" pap in the books they make their flock buy. It's a win/win for everyone but the kid who gets sacrificed.

So, the short version of my answer to your concerns is that yes, when parents are so muddled in their thinking as to make deadly decisions for their living, breathing child, somebody who's clear headed (objective) should step in.

Julie

[LostinVA]

34. It's not THEIR lives in jeopardy

[auntAgonist]

11. and this ..

A former Jehovah's Witness said the blood ban isn't always as strict as it appears.

"The word is symantics," said Kerry Louderback-Wood, of Fort Myers, Florida.

"A rose by another name smells sweeter. On one hand, we do not take blood in any form. On the other hand, 'Oh, you can have albumen, hemoglobin, by personal decision."'

Louderback-Wood, 38 and almost nine months pregnant, said her mother died of a heart attack after she refused a blood transfusion late in her life.

Earlier in her life, she accepted blood after hemorrhaging while giving birth to one of her children, she said.

Louderback-Wood said she remembers her mother telling her there were some things in life that should be kept from the church.

She said she quit being a Jehovah's Witness in her teens when she realized her university aspirations would be frowned on by the church.

She said in a later e-mail that Jehovah's Witness doctrine has shifted over the years. For example, she said in the 1960s, organ transplants weren't allowed, but they are now.

"What's sad is think of all the people who died or came down with polio/other diseases because of these bans that were later lifted.

"Why should the baby's die, when Jehovah may change his stance on blood in the future."

http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=11655&news_channel_id=145&channel_id=145&rot=11

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. kant have no ejukated jehovahs!

my gawd, what a story. nice post.

[auntAgonist]

29. thank you ... it's so

tragic on so many levels. Scary for all concerned I'm sure. I just hope those last surviving babies can grow up healthy and happy.

At times while reading about this, I remembered another multiple birth story that happened in Ontario Canada that of the Dionne quintuplets. They were seized by the government and put on display for all to see. It's a miracle that the children even lived. They were born May 28th 1934. Five identical girls.

http://www.quintland.com/

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-169-983-20/that_was_then/life_society/dionne_quintuplets_born


On May 28, 1934, five identical girls are born to Elzire and Oliva Dionne in Callander, Ontario. The five sisters - Annette, Cecile, Yvonne, Marie and Émilie - become known as the Dionne quintuplets, and together they weigh less than 6.5 kilograms. Against all expectations, they survive their first weeks.

[MrPrax]

30. 5? Big deal...no goalie...n/t

[auntAgonist]

32. ? I don't understand you post ..sorry n/t

[MrPrax]

69. Hockey joke...

OP is about Sextuplets (6) babies in BC, Canada and the 'snark' was about Quintuplets (5) in Quebec, Canada.

Sorry to dumb it down for you...but I am not sure why you would reply to a quip that wasn't meant for you...since you didn't GET it.

(I don't do serious replies to moral quandaries that Americans might have about 'birth'... I do ridicule quite well :P

So don't reply again)

[auntAgonist]

70. yeah well I'm Canadian

I didn't get your reference. And your quip WAS in answer to one of my posts that's why I asked.
AND, .. the quints were born in Callander, Ontario ... NOT Quebec.


aA
sheesh

[Tansy_Gold]

38. Christian Science

Many years ago I had some friends who were Christian Scientists. Their five-year-old son fell ill, so they prayed over him. They called in "specialists" to pray harder than they could themselves, but their son's condition did not improve.

After several days, when his fever soared and he began having convulsions, they gave up on prayer and called an ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the boy died in his mother's arms.

The doctor in the emergency room who pronounced him dead quickly diagnosed spinal meningitis, and said there was virtually no doubt that the boy would have lived if the parents had sought medical attention sooner.

No charges were filed against the parents, because even though they were quite guilty of wilfull neglect that resulted in the child's death, they had the right to practice their religion.

IIRC, the parents divorced a year or two later. Rumor had it that the father blamed the mother for the boy's death: because she hadn't prayed sincerely enough and didn't have enough faith.

I was in my 20s at the time and had two small children of my own. Though I had never had any leanings toward Christian Science, whatever minimal "belief" I had grown up with left me as a result of that incident.

We live in a reality-based world. We can choose to ignore reality and put ourselves at risk, but we do not have the right to force anyone else, not even our own children, to risk their lives for our fantasies.

Tansy Gold

[auntAgonist]

41. thank you for that well articulated post.

It's so sad that little boy died, tragic to say the least.

:hug:

aA

[ChairmanAgnostic]

46. and her lack of faith was proven by her calling the ambulance.

sheesh. crazy. . . .

[Horse with no Name]

84. Ahhh the nuance of organ transplants

Without getting into the complete gist of all...JW have a set number of elders--none of whom are Bible scholars.
These elders got together and TRANSLATED the Bible to fit the religion they were building.
Part of the passages that they interpreted..."Thou shalt not eat from the blood of the lamb"..etc...is partially where the organ donation and blood transfusion bans came from in their translations.
So....up to the 1960's it was banned to have either UNTIL one of the church elders needed a kidney transplant.
At that time...JW lifted the ban on kidney transplants because "they felt" that the scripture passage wasn't talking about kidneys, however, didn't lift the ban on the other organ transplants. If I were a JW and had a relative die needing a kidney...I would have left the religion at that point.

[Kurovski]

31. I'm not going to read the article, but did the couple use med. science for conception?

Sextuplets are an otherwise rare occurence.

[auntAgonist]

40. Why not read the article? I had to search but here

is the information that is published.
*****
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/168848

Obstetrician Dr. Timothy Rowe, who heads the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of British Columbia, said he is deeply concerned about the six babies.

“I felt for the babies and the mother, thinking this is what everybody doesn’t want to happen,” Rowe said.

“One, getting this number of babies, and two, getting them born so early.

“They’re certainly in the best possible hands, that’s the comfort. But they certainly have a long road ahead of them.”

Rowe said naturally conceived sextuplets occur only once in several billion births.

The six tiny babies born on the weekend were likely conceived through the use of fertility drugs, he said.
******

nothing definite.

[Kurovski]

42. Time constraints.

But thanks very much for the info. It would appear that they may be picking and choosing medical practices.

They've created quite the drama for themselves.

[auntAgonist]

43. sad but true, and unfortunately more than just drama

for the defenseless babies.

You're welcome :)

aA

[LostinVA]

33. Good -- they are not only minors, but infants

[auntAgonist]

45. why do they not pursue alternatives to blood transfusion

http://ccforum.com/content/8/S2/S15

I'm no Dr or nurse but I do know that when my blood levels were extremely low I was given hemoglobin and Iron infusions etc ..

http://ccforum.com/content/8/S2/S15

Recent studies have evaluated the utility of ultrapurified polymerized bovine hemoglobin (HBOC-201) as an oxygen-carrying blood substitute <8>. Bovine hemoglobin administration has been well tolerated in humans and improves oxygen delivery when compared with crystalloid infusion <9>. Phase III trials with this product in elective orthopedic surgery were recently completed. Prehospital and emergency center trauma trials have been initiated in conjunction with the US Department of Defense.

As I said, I'm not in the field of health care .. :shrug: There has to be a solution.

[laundry_queen]

76. It's different for preemies.

Especially micropreemies (born before 26 weeks)They need actual blood, because the reason for loss of blood is usually the numerous blood tests they go through on a daily basis to asses their condition. Micropreemies have very little blood to begin with so each test depletes their reserves. Hemoglobin or other blood products would be useless in restoring the AMOUNT of blood needed for the babies' bodies to function after the tests (and to have enough for more upcoming tests).

I'm not one usually in favor of government mandated treatment, but in this case, it's pretty clear. With blood, the babies will probably live, without blood they most certainly die. It's not the same as refusing a vaccine or cancer treatment where there are unknowns. This is pretty black and white.

One other thing that bothers me is that the parents likely conceived the sextuplets through some form of fertility treatment, likely powerful injections since most IVF clinics won't implant that many embryos. And because they created this situation, IMO they have no right to refuse their children the treatment for a condition that they themselves created.

[Madspirit]

48. Child Abuse

A parent's religion does not excuse them from child abuse. Denying medical treatment is child abuse. I don't give a fuck what their religion thinks. What if their religion dictated beating children and locking them in tiny boxes. This is absurd. How do I hate religion. Let me count the ways. So much abuse in the name of mythical beings.
Madspirit

[auntAgonist]

51. ...

more thoughts?

aA

[Auntie Bush]

73. It's against my religion to PAY TAXES. All taxpayers are welcome!

Unless you're a Republican.

[bedazzled]

75. i worked with a nice guy who died because he didn't treat his pneumonia

he was a christian scientist. it was a sad waste of a life,
but as he was an adult, nothing could have been done about it.
people tried to talk him out of it. he lost his wife because
of it.

when a child is under the age of consent, i feel they should be
treated in spite of the parent's objections. a minor shouldn't
die because of a belief they may or may not have in the future...

p.s. he also had the "specialists" pray over him. guess they
weren't special enough

[Katherine Brengle]

85. Absolutely agreed - a child should not have to pay for the mistakes of its parents

of course it doesn't always work this way, but in this case it can.

[Horse with no Name]

77. This is how it happens

In most cases.
And in most cases, although the parents can't admit it, they are relieved that that the decision is out of their hands. They get the best of all worlds...they get to protest their faith, their child gets helped and they keep their church.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Jehovah's Witnesses are some of the hardest to

work with

The problem is what we may think is insane (and it is from our perspective) is very valid for them

Heck, I had one of them refuse a simple water and salt IV since it could be a blood product. In the end we agreed. Medical ethics crashes with religious belief, the difference, that was an adult.

I do not envy the BC government, since they are in an imposible situation

[Katherine Brengle]

81. Do these people really believe they have the right to kill their children?

That is essentially what they are doing if they deny necessary medical treatment and those babies die.

That's screwed up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Simple answer, YES

complex answer... well as usual it is not as simple as that

[Katherine Brengle]

83. People that whacked out should have their children taken away regardless.

I have no pity for them. They can believe whatever the heck they want, but that doesn't give them a right to harm their children.

This makes me livid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. And here is where medical ethics

crashes with religious belief. I wish it was that simple, but it is not.

They do NOT intend to harm the kids... no, not defending them, but having dealt with people of the faith as patients, I know it is not that easy.

Moreover, careful where you tread in your judging, since somebody is passing a similar judgement on you right now.

As I said, I wish it was simple, but it never is.

[Nevernose]

86. That's a STUPID, INSANE religious belief.

Based off of no reality whatsoever.

Plus, a "dirty little secret" that an ER Nurse friend assures me is true: "They all take the blood, sooner or later."

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. No thery don't

at least not all of them.

[Nevernose]

91. I wish they would.

It's still a stupid belief, even according to their version of the Bible. There's nothing in it against a blood transfusion

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. You don't have to convince me

but that is why it is called a belief

If you examine any religious belief, they are stupid at its core and unprovable.

Let me take one of the tenets of my faith. There is only one god and I cannot use images to represent him.

Now exactly how are you going to prove that one?

You can't.

Just as you cannot prove to a Jehovah Witness that taking blood is a graven sin that will lead to them burning in hell.

You have several problems here, first they base this on scripture... (yes a bad interpretation)

Second, taking that blood damns them to hell.

So dying, as horrible as it may be, may keep the soul pure and salvageable to the Lord when the final day comes.

In the end, arguing with religious belief is very hard, and why medical ethics has a hell of a time with these cases. When it involves adults in their full use of faculties, well people shrug shoulders and hope that they choose damnation (and life) over death. When it involves minors, you are placed in the awkward position of doing what you can for the kid. I have known of some dramatic actions by medical personnel that skirted not only medical ethics but the law itself...

And why these cases are always hell for medical personnel

[Nevernose]

94. Unless the proof IS scripture

In which case, the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't even following literally (though some things, apparently, are literal -- that's another thread entirely). For instance:

"All of the biblical verses that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be against transfusion: Acts 15:29; see also Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:1, 2, 10-12; Deuteronomy 12:23-25." All of this is either clearly is either figurative or related to food laws.

There is simple LOGIC available.

The bible is either talking about eating blood, or, in the later parts, Jesus' blood. Nowhere, even in the New World Translation, is the transfusion of blood discussed. Apparently, we shouldn't EAT blood, and even in the NWV that's pretty clear.

(And yes, I ultimately agree with you: it's ALL insane)

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. In their view taking the blood in any shape or form

is violating the laws.

So yes it is insane and what is a bad interpretation....

I had a long discussion about this with a lady who needed an IV. She was pretty dehydrated, but would not have any of it, since a simple solution of water and salt was blood to her, or at least the opening for it. Finally I called medical control.

Protocol said one thing, she refused. We got her to sign an AMA (Against Medical Advise), and transported to the hospital, where they spent another ten hours until she went unconscious and her daughter, not a member of the fold, gave the ok for the IV. We had the Medical Ethics committee in the meantime consult with the DA... and this happened in Mexico...

To say that I was damned to burn in hell for all eternity by her after she recovered is to put it mildly

I offered to do the deed after we were cleared by oh, a whole panoply of people... and yes the daughter was begging her mother. Since there is nothing like a living will that she ever signed... but oh boy... so I got a lesson in the faith, as it were.

The lesson for the day... you cannot reason with people when it comes to a personal belief...

[Zhade]

92. Since when were religious beliefs based on reality?

Admittedly, the belief remains stupid and insane, if not terribly exclusive in its unfounded nature.

[GaYellowDawg]

96. Hard to be sanguine about this.

Get it? Sanguine? I'll be here all week. :evilgrin: