British Columbia Canada.

Sextuplets were born. 3 of them were taken into government custody to give them life saving blood transfusions. Which is against the Jehovah Witnesses religion.

The Toronto Sun Newspaper poll asked did the government have that right to take the authority off the parents in order to give them treatment to be able to survive?

2007-02-01
Did the B.C. government do the right thing by seizing 3 infant sextuplets and giving 2 blood transfusions against the wishes of their Jehovah’s Witness parents?
Yes 88%
No 12%

Total Votes for this Question: 5052

Now What are your thoughts on this? Did the government do the right thing. Does the parents have a right to refuse medical treatment even knowing they will die without it. Should the parents be charged if this did happen? Should the parents religious beliefs be more important?

For me personally I am happy that the government did what they did, the parents are furious but now because of the intervention these babies have a chanch to live.

Thank you in advance !

Joe

shygrneyzs

Crossing religious boundaries is a real sticky issue. On one hand I can see why the government stepped in. On the other hand I can see why the parents are furious because the government's action violated their belief system.

Were these parents willing to allow these three children to die? What would have happened then? Would the government come in and take the other three children and charge the parents with murder? How do religions like Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Science balance their beliefs with what is medically responsible behavior?

faithfultojah

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I can inform you that we do not accept blood transfusions based on our belief that the bible is God's word and within states that we should abstain from blood. The bible also holds out a hope for those that obey Jehovah's Law, a gift that God has given us from the blood that provides life to all that seek to do his will, the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.

I am sure that our God Jehovah will understand the issue at hand and judge accordingly all those involved,

Moparbyfar

WOW! 5052 votes. I wonder how many of them were 'christians', because it's quite clear that God does not approve of the taking in of blood in ANY way, including introvenously. Would a christian go against something that God disapproves of?

On the other hand, a christian can request alternative nonblood medical treatment because not only is it safer than blood but it keeps them in favor with God. Surely Canada is not backward in the knowledge and use of such medicines?

Credendovidis

Dear Joe,
Parents have the freedom to educate their children the way they prefer, but that should always be subject to the physical and mental health of their children.

Therefore that government did the right thing. But I see no reason to punish the parents by charging them. It is the law that has to be upgraded to allow for the change to provide children with the medical care they require. Even against their parent's wishes.
Parents are entitled to their religious beliefs, and should be free to personally refuse any injections or treatments. But that does allow them to refuse essential healthcare for their children. It is up to each and every human being to decide that for her or himself. And as long as they are too young for that , it is up to the government to guarantee that healthcare.

blackblue

LOL, if those parents were willing to let their children die because of their so called "faith" then those children should be taken away from them.

Just like a religion that allows a brother or father to kill a sister/daughter because she "shamed" them.

It's ridicules.


The government did the right thing.The parents obviously are delusional and don't have the kids best interest at heart.Good luck to the babes.They'll need it.


And..not to mention if their so called God will spite those kids because of something out of their control, then that God is a prick.

Tj3

The references in the Bible are solely to the eating of animal blood and have nothing whatsoever to do with blood transfusions.

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo...nsfusions.html

I think in cases like this, the government is right to step in and act, just as I believe that the government should step in to protect children in the Mormon polygamy sects.

0rphan

This story saddens me deeply......

When i was a kid, my friend was a little boy from next door, we used to play every day together, his family were jehova's witnesses, he was taken seriously ill and required a blood transfusion to save his life.

His parents were adament that God would save him and refused, he died shortly afterwards.....he was four years old.

I will never understand this..i would lay down and die for my kids as i'm sure any parent would.

So in my oppinion the goverment did the right thing 100%

Moparbyfar

Funny how none of the success stories get told about non blood transfusion surgery etc huh. There are many out there and it seems that more and more health professionals are opting for ways to use these alternative methods as they are a lot safer and have less side effects.
What about all the people that have died after blood transfusions?
In a number of cases where children were taken away from JW parents, 12 died. That doesn't convince me that BT's are safer. Neither does the comment made by a medical doctor published in Canadian magazine Macleans that "three out of four blood transfusions are more likely to harm than heal."

Tj3

No one is arguing that in some cases alternatives may exist, but may not always be available. In any case, where a blood transfusion is required, there is no reason not to proceed with the blood transfusion.

This shows how statistics can be misleading. First of all, I note that you provided no source for your statistics, have no comparison between the number of times that a person died with blood or non-blood transfusions, and in fact, no specific reference to the date of publication of the Macleans.

The fact is that when a person needs a blood transfusion, they are usually in need of serious medical care and often their need is life-threatening. That being the case, we would expect to see a notable number who do die afterward. That would be the case with non-blood alternatives also.