B.C. government seizes three sextuplets for blood transfusions

[jolinar of malkshor]

This has been on the news the last couple of days....

B.C. government social workers seized three of four surviving sextuplets on the weekend so they could receive blood transfusions over their parents' religious objections and Supreme Court of Canada precedent, the family's lawyer says.

But the province abruptly handed control of the infants back to the parents Wednesday when they challenged the seizure in court. The parents, who cannot be identified under a court-ordered publication ban, are Jehovah's Witnesses whose beliefs forbid blood transfusions even to save a life

B.C. Jehovah's Witness couple will demand an apology from the province over its decision to allow three of their four surviving sextuplets to have blood transfusions -- a practice that goes against their religion.

http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/chan..._id=145&rot=11


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...201?hub=Canada

For the life of me....I can't understand why PARENTS of all people will not want to help their dieing children.....this is why religon ****es me off.

[Sylvanfan]

The strange thing is that they stepped in after two of them had already died. This is pretty sad though that of the 6 born that 2 have already been unable to survive and 3 more were in pretty grave danger.

That does seem like a pretty strange belief to me to willingly let 5 of the 6 children die before they're even two months old. I guess that's what would have happened in 1860, but we have global medicare now and have made advances in medicine. Maybe they should consider the occasional advancement in religious beliefs?

Next time the JW's come onto my property and come to my door to solicit their religion on me, I'm going to go off on them and scream at them calling them murderers under my belief system until they leave my damn yard.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Its not the religion that's the problem (or at least the biggest problem) here, its the fact that parents do not allow their children to decide for themselves if it is THEIR religion.

Clearly infants haven't had time to digest the meat of the belief system the JW's have. So they shouldn't have it forced upon them.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Its not the religion that's the problem (or at least the biggest problem) here, its the fact that parents do not allow their children to decide for themselves if it is THEIR religion.

Well.....in this case I think the children would have a difficult time deciding what to do.

Really....are they that stupid? The mother just gave birth.....does she not realize that before birth ALL of her children are basically on a permanent blood transfusion line with the umbilical cord? WAKE UP YOU ######S.

Also....would they be against keeping some of their own blood stored, and if needed would they be willing to transfuse their own blood? (Can blod be kept in storage indefinately?)

[Antithesis]

But they should be given the opportunity to live to an age where they CAN make that decision for themselves. It is truly sad when people force religion on anyone (and I am not one of the anti-religion zealots on this site) whether they are related to them or not.

Jolinar, I think that the issue is some obscure passage from the bible that has been completely taken out of context ... I recall it being something about not blood tranfusions equating to eating the person who provided the blood.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

And just before they were born, doctors told the parents to decide if they wanted the infants to have help breathing - that without resuscitation they would die.

"The parents respect the sanctity of life - that's their religious views - and they chose resuscitation," said Brady.

"Two weeks later the government completely turns around and says we're going to take the children away from you.

"Two weeks ago, if the parents were so inclined, they could have refused resuscitation. It was their choice. Today, the government wanted to interfere. It doesn't make sense."

No, it doesn't make sense. They'll let doctors resusitate them to keep them alive, but not let them have blood tranfusions?

Poor kids.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well.....in this case I think the children would have a difficult time deciding what to do.

Really....are they that stupid? The mother just gave birth.....does she not realize that before birth ALL of her children are basically on a permanent blood transfusion line with the umbilical cord? WAKE UP YOU ######S.

Also....would they be against keeping some of their own blood stored, and if needed would they be willing to transfuse their own blood? (Can blod be kept in storage indefinately?)

Actually the mother's blood and the baby's blood are completely seperate. The baby may infact have a completely different type of blood than their mother. It's funny however, that you would call them ######ed when you have your facts wrong.

(Not that I'm supporting their decision.)

[Flames_Gimp]

ahh, religion ...when will people grow some brains?

[Vulcan]

There's an old story of a person trapped in a flood. As the water rises he climbs onto the roof. A boat comes by and offers to take him to safety. He refuses saying "god will save me". Another boat comes but he says the same thing, "god will save me". A Helicopter comes by but the man refuses help again.
The guy drowns and goes to the Pearly Gates. God says "what are you doing here?".
The guy says "I was waiting for you to save me".
God says "I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what's wrong with you"?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Actually the mother's blood and the baby's blood are completely seperate. The baby may infact have a completely different type of blood than their mother. It's funny however, that you would call them ######ed when you have your facts wrong.

(Not that I'm supporting their decision.)

The umbilical cord transfers almost everything the mother has in her blood into the babies blood short of her actual blood cells. You knew what I was trying to say...along with probably everyone else on this site....but what ever...I am sorry that I wasn't clear with that.

I still stick by my original statement.

Oh ...and thanks for the lesson...I learn so much.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

That does seem like a pretty strange belief to me to willingly let 5 of the 6 children die before they're even two months old. I guess that's what would have happened in 1860, but we have global medicare now and have made advances in medicine. Maybe they should consider the occasional advancement in religious beliefs?

Consider another 'advancement' (that is a loaded word). Patient autonomy, patient's rights, and the notion of the patient as consumer are all relatively recent phenomena, arising primarily in the sixties. Before that, medical patriarchy ruled the day. Jehovah's Witnesses nor any other patients would generally not have been able to refuse treatment once the doctor ordered it. If a doctor said you required amputation, usually that's what you would have gotten. Your disabled child might have faced forced sterilisation, and there would be no stopping it. If you were dying a slow and agonising death you could not refuse ventilator treatment. If a doctor said you needed a Caesarian section, you had no choice but to go under the knife.

So, in earlier times, there would not have been a big issue about this (unless you were a Jehovah's Witness). The children would receive treatment, like it or not. By institution patient autonomy however, our society faces new challenges. What is more important, the right to choose what happens to your own body or the preservation of life at all costs?

Obviously in this case there is a complicating matter, that of guardianship. Clearly these children were incompetent to make their own decisions, whether about their bodies or about their religious values. But when a patient is incompetent who should make decisions on their behalf? A loved one, such as a parent, or the state? If the state is the guardian, whose values will it implement? Is the preservation of life at all costs a universal value, one that should override any other views?

The standpoint of Jehovah's witnesses on the issue of blood transfusions has not changed at all over the course of history. It was still that way when attitudes toward the medical profession changed enough to allow patients to decide what they would do with their own bodies, for better or worse. So is it fair to blame religion for not 'advancing'? Or should we blame the patient's rights movement for enabling these believers to practice what they preach?

[Vulcan]

Hey, Icurus, the parents are incompetent and I think it's been established that they are free to refuse treatment of themselves but they've lost their parental rights as far as I'm concerned.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The umbilical cord transfers almost everything the mother has in her blood into the babies blood short of her actual blood cells. You knew what I was trying to say...along with probably everyone else on this site....but what ever...I am sorry that I wasn't clear with that.

I still stick by my original statement.

Oh ...and thanks for the lesson...I learn so much.

Feel free to stick by it. However, a blood transfusion is much different. The mother gets nutrients from an outside source and then shares them with her baby. It's like the baby eating. It's not like the baby getting a 'body part'. A blood transfusion is completely different from what the mother does for her child through the umbilical cord. As a matter of fact, serious complications can and do arise from birth where the mothers blood actually does mingle with the childs... But as I said, you're free to think whatever you want.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Hey, Icurus, the parents are incompetent and I think it's been established that they are free to refuse treatment of themselves but they've lost their parental rights as far as I'm concerned.

Just because they have a moral stance that differs from the majority of society doesn't make them incompetent.

And you have to keep in mind that the parents do believe their choice is the best choice for their children (i.e. they may die but at least they will have Salvation in the afterlife--I don't know how JW works but I am guessing it is something along the lines of that). If the state takes control then the message sent is that the state's values are more valid than the parents', to the extent that altricial children can be legally seized from their parents. (Imagine the flip side, that in Bizarro world run by the Jehovah's Witness the state would not allow your child to get a blood transfusion... how would you feel? I know it is a bit different, but try to imagine what the parents must be feeling.)

The stance the BC government should take is that the sanctity of human life is paramount over even religion and individual autonomy, as a matter of international human rights (see Article 1 of the Universal Declaration), custom, and jus cogens norms.

It is a difficult issue to be sure and I don't think I have thought my way through it just yet.