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

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?

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,

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?:confused:

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?
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 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.

;)

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.

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 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/jw/bloodtransfusions.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.

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 opinion the government did the right thing 100%

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."

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.

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.


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."

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.

no specific reference to the date of publication of the Macleans.


26/08/1961 issue of Macleans.

Two physicians were being interviewed in 1977 on the CBC program "Access". One of them, Doctor C. B. Baker of Toronto, was asked how many open-heart operations he had performed without blood. Baker responded:

“We've done a total of 37 now . . .”

“With no blood?”

“Right.”

“Is it a poorer kind of treatment?”

“It's a better kind of treatment. .  . . Nurses often say in intensive care, 'Why don't you do all your patients without blood? They do so well.'”

“So, this isn't a Jehovah's Witness operation, then. It can really be applied to any patient?”

“And we apply it as much as possible to other people now, especially through our Jehovah's Witness experience. Now, that's taught us a great deal, that people that you don't have to use blood on will do better!”

This is an interesting article on Bloodless Surgery (not written by Jehovah's Witnesses)... Heroes of Medicine: Bloodless Surgery (http://www.time.com/time/reports/heroes/bloodless.html)

I find none of these misleading but as Dr. Aryeh Shander, chief of anesthesiology and critical-care medicine says in the above article, "it's imperative that we develop a mind-set where we look at refusing blood not as an obstacle but as a challenge."

Modern medicine is becoming more and more advanced and it is a lot easier today to find a medical centre that performs bloodless surgery than a few decades ago.

All I'm saying is that there are other safe options available for people and not just JW's.

All I'm saying is that there are other safe options available for people and not just JW's.

I have no issue with bloodless alternatives. They also help prevent infections. So where this is available, and feasible, by all means - use those options.

Keep in mind that the reference to "no blood" alternatives to transfusions does not mean that blood is not involved. It means that primary blood components are not involved but that constituent parts of blood may be used as part of the "substitute".

Personally I think the government did the right thing.

Our neighbors up the street were JW's, one day, the first time their daughter got her period, she started to hemorrhage. They called an ambulance, she was rushed to the hospital and they had to give her a blood transfusion or she would have died. They were kicked out of the church for that.

Another good reason not to follow an organized religion, doesn't seem so organized to me.

[QUOTE] doesn't seem so organized to me.

Because.. Sounds to me that if they deliberately did this then it was right to excommunicate them, as they believe it is a violation of God's law, making for a very organised and consistent religion. But since one cannot be sure of the full facts, e.g. were they actually baptized, was the decision forced on them by the government etc, then one can't really speculate.

The whole do as I say or suffer in hell thing, not very organized, and not very tempting.

To each there own, but personally, I'd walk on hot coals, take a bullet, torture, amputation, death, anything to save my kids.

It's blood, life giving blood. What's so bad about life saving blood? Why is it so wrong? Because somewhere at some time someone read a passage in the bible and decided that God didn't like it, and now you can't have it!

Yup, a book written by man, translated over and over again, read by man, determines whether you live or die.

Not for me. If God is against medicine, blood transfusions, all of that, and if you believe, which you must because you believe in the bible, that God made everything, that everything on earth is made by God, then didn't he develop the technology for blood transfusions too?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The bible doesn't say God is against medicine as long as it is within his guidelines. Many or most medicines today are, and I believe all devout Jehovah's Witnesses will do anything within those guidelines to save their children e.g. they will put their children through chemo if need be.
The sad thing is that people who do not understand these guidelines automatically see JW's (or anyone who refuses BT's) as heartless and cold, when really it's the complete opposite.

The bible doesn't say God is against medicine as long as it is within his guidelines. Many or most medicines today are, and I believe all devout Jehovah's Witnesses will do anything within those guidelines to save their children eg, they will put their children thru chemo if need be.

The problem is that there is no prohibition in scripture against treatments such as blood transfusions.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way at all. If you are told by all medical experts that only a blood transfusion will save your child and you don't allow it because of a man written book, well, heaven help you.

Guidelines, got to love them, rules, rules, rules, and if you disobey, then hell, fire, and brimstone. Not the God I believe in, thank God.

If you look hard enough, anything in the bible can be mixed up to conform to your specific belief. Heck, it's been translated so many times, I doubt that many original stories are even in it anymore. Either way, it's a man written book, that people take as the word of God, not me.

Either way, I think the government did the right thing in the original post, obviously the parents were unwilling to give their children the medical treatment they required, all because of a book.

If you look hard enough, anything in the bible can be mixed up to conform to your specific belief.

I used to say this also, but after studying it, I realized that that is only true if you take things completely out of context.

That's my point though, are you sue that you aren't taking it out of context, are you sure that you're right and the JW's are wrong, or the Lutherans are wrong, or the Catholics are wrong? Not everyone can be right, someone has to be wrong, who?

I believe in God, but not the bible and not Church or organized religion. I live my life the best I can, am as kind as I can be (I admit, sometimes it's hard) love my kids, my friends, my family. I don't cheat, I don't lie (at least not about anything big ;)), I'm faithful, kind and caring. Isn't that all that God wants?

I just don't understand a persons willingness to die because of something they read in a man written book.

I never did get an answer to my question. If God created everything, which you must believe if you believe in the bible, then didn't he also create the technology for blood transfusions? If so, then how can it be wrong? How come the JW's won't allow something that must have been created by God, or didn't God create everything?

It's an interesting question, and I really don't expect an answer, after all you have to admit that the question does make some sense, and if it does, then the JW's are wrong.

Believe whatever you want, read the bible, go to church, whatever, but to deny a child a life saving procedure because you believe that God is against it, well that's murder, at least in my eyes.

What happened to "Thou shalt not kill" ?

That's my point though, are you sue that you aren't taking it out of context, are you sure that you're right and the JW's are wrong, or the Lutherans are wrong, or the Catholics are wrong? Not everyone can be right, someone has to be wrong, who?

I am just reading what the Bible actually says, with respect to the local and the whole context of the Bible. If you want to discuss the blood transfusion, we can go into details regarding what the Bible does say.


I believe in God, but not the bible and not Church or organized religion.

Then how do you know who God is? Many people believe in many gods - how do you decide which one is right if you reject the Bible?


I live my life the best I can, am as kind as I can be (I admit, sometimes it's hard) love my kids, my friends, my family. I don't cheat, I don't lie (at least not about anything big ;)), I'm faithful, kind and caring. Isn't that all that God wants?

If you have lied, whether it is about anything large or small, it is still a lie.


I just don't understand a persons willingness to die because of something they read in a man written book.

Agreed. That is why I do not base my doctrine on writings of men or denominational teachings, but stick to what scripture says.


I never did get an answer to my question. If God created everything, which you must believe if you believe in the bible, then didn't he also create the technology for blood transfusions? If so, then how can it be wrong? How come the JW's won't allow something that must have been created by God, or didn't God create everything?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with blood transfusions. The Bible does not in any way condemn or imply any opposition to blood transfusions.


Believe whatever you want, read the bible, go to church, whatever, but to deny a child a life saving procedure because you believe that God is against it, well that's murder, at least in my eyes.

Agreed.

Then how do you know who God is? Many people believe in many gods - how do you decide which one is right if you reject the Bible?

God is in my heart, in my soul, not in a book. I reject the bible because it isn't the word of God, but the word of man, stories written by man. How can anyone believe the things written in the bible? Yes, there are many interesting stories, and allot of things that were witten in the bible are a good base on how to live your life, but true, I don't think so. I don't need a book to know and love God.


If you have lied, whether it is about anything large or small, it is still a lie.

True, and show me a person who claims he/she has never lied and I'll show you a liar. We are human, fallible, everyone has lied in their lifetime, I guarantee it.


Agreed. That is why I do not base my doctrine on writings of men or denominational teachings, but stick to what scripture says.

But scripture was written by men, not God. God has never written a book.

Everyone thinks that their way is the right way, the JW's, the Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Atheists, Deists, you name it, we all think that we're right and everone else is wrong.

Won't it be a huge laugh when we die and find that God was a forgiving, loving God after all and everyone is in heaven. If we are all children of God then we'll all go to heaven, unless he's the vengeful, hell, fire and brimstone God that most organized religions believe in.

If he is the scary God the bible speaks of, then why not strike down those that don't believe right now, he's God, so he could do that. He doesn't, why is that? Because we are all his children, even if we don't worship him.

If my kids grow up and decide to be Atheists, I won't love them any less? So why would God?

We're getting off topic, sorry, my fault. :(

if you disobey, then hell, fire, and brimstone. Not the God I believe in, thank God.


Not my God either. Nowhere in the bible does it say we all go to literal hell for being bad. On the other hand, he promises if we are faithful, even to the point of death, he will resurrect us to a better life on earth.



If you look hard enough, anything in the bible can be mixed up to conform to your specific belief.

That's why there's so much confusion today, they DON'T look hard enough into God's Word because if they did, they would see that clearly God does not want us to consume blood in any way, shape or form.

It is not just an ancient law only applicable to the Israelites, nor was it only referring to animal blood. When the apostles were given direction to instruct all christians to abstain from blood, this also included human blood.

It doesn't matter how the blood is taken into the body, whether it's by way of mouth or introvenously, the law still applies.

I think I've said this in another post of yours but I'll say it again anyway, the 40 or so men that wrote the bible were "secretaries" of God. None of them clash or contradict each other.
In saying that the bible has changed over time is admitting that someone as powerful and almighty as God can't even keep his word. But because many prophesies have been fulfilled already in the scriptures, then I have complete faith that the other prophesies not yet fulfilled will indeed come true also.
I don't think you're actually looking for an answer Alty, I think you've already made your mind up. That's completely your choice, and at least you feel comfortable with what you believe.

Lastly, if God created the technology for BT's then he must have created the technology for nuclear weapons too. Of course he created man with the ability to think and reason, but what we choose to do with our minds is up to us. It is through his holy spirit that we see and grasp the truth from his Word.

The wonderful thing about my God is that he is a just God and had good intentions for the earth and it's inhabitants, and that purpose has not changed. It has been "delayed" due to Satan's challenging his sovereignty, but that purpose will soon be realised, bringing an end to all wickedness, suffering, and best of all death. (Rev 21:3,4)

Thank goodness for that, then there'll be no need for any hospitals and emergency operations at all!

God is in my heart, in my soul, not in a book

God indwells me also. But many people make the same claim and we see many differents gods indwelling others. How do you know who the right one is?


I reject the bible because it isn't the word of God, but the word of man, stories written by man.

What research led you to this conclusion?


True, and show me a person who claims he/she has never lied and I'll show you a liar. We are human, fallible, everyone has lied in their lifetime, I guarantee it.

Exactly. That is what the Bible says.

Rom 3:22-24
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

Further, God is perfect. I think that you would agree with that. And being perfect, He cannot abide sin in His presence. However we all have sinned, so no matter how much good that we do, that sin remains.

How do you get rid of sin so that you can be acceptable to God?


Won't it be a huge laugh when we die and find that God was a forgiving, loving God after all and everyone is in heaven

He is loving and forgiving - so much so that He took on our form, came to earth as a man so that He could go to the cross and take the penalty that we deserved. No one need go to hell, and yet most people reject Him.


If we are all children of God then we'll all go to heaven, unless he's the vengeful, hell, fire and brimstone God that most organized religions believe in.

If He were vengeful, He would not have come in the flesah to take our penalty. It is not His desire that we should be condemned - well let's see what He says:

John 3:16-18
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
NKJV

Doesn't sound vengeful to me - sounds quite loving and forgiving. But He is not going to force anyone to heaven. He gave us free will.

We aren't getting anywhere with this conversation, and I don't think we will, our views are way to different, and although interesting to discuss, we aren't going to reach a consensus.


I don't think you're actually looking for an answer Alty, I think you've already made your mind up. That's completely your choice, and at least you feel comfortable with what you believe.

You are right, I am quite comfortable with my beliefs, it's taken a long time for me to accept what I believe, unfortunately others still haven't accepted it. I am an anomaly to many, a person who believes in God without the bible or church. Many wonder how or why, it's incomprehensible to them.


God indwells me also. But many people make the same claim and we see many differents gods indwelling others. How do you know who the right one is?

How do you know that your God is the righ one? What makes you so sure that my God and yours aren't one and the same? Because of a book?

God bless you all, but I'm out, I don't want this to turn into a battle.

Peace. :)

You are right, I am quite comfortable with my beliefs, it's taken a long time for me to accept what I believe, unfortunately others still haven't accepted it. I am an anomaly to many, a person who believes in God without the bible or church. Many wonder how or why, it's incomprehensible to them.

That is not so much of an anomaly - I know many who claim similar views.


How do you know that your God is the righ one? What makes you so sure that my God and yours aren't one and the same? Because of a book?

I know for many reasons. I know because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I know because I know God and what He has done in my life, and most importantly, yes, because of His word, but not just because of what it says in the book, but because the Bible has been examined and studied in detail and has been proven to be accurately not only in its detail, but also in the accuracy of the detailed prophecies.

This would be amazing for a book written by one person, but many times more so by the fact that the Bible has been written by so many different people over so many centuries, and it is not only entirely accurate, but also entirely consistent from end to end.

The reason that I ask how you know is that many people come up with beliefs in God or gods based upon conclusions that they have personally developed. You questioned why we should believe what a book says - and I have told you why. But why do you feel that your beliefs based upon your own experiences and feelings are more accurate?

If I where to describe my beliefs, they'd delete the post, because it would be a 300 page book. Yes, I too can write a book about beliefs. ;)

I respect your right to believe what you want, and the belief that the bible is fact. I do not believe that, as the people who claim it is fact are all Christians, so understandably, the are a bit biased.

I also "know" God, and what he has done in my life, without the bible and it's preachings. I believe without any physical evidence whatsoever, is that so hard to believe? Am I somehow less connected to God, in your eyes, because I do not believe in the bible?

Let me assure you, my belief in God is real, and no one can dispute it, because unlike the Christians, I do not try to backup my beliefs using a book. It's a great doorstop, a wonderful way to fill up the bookcase, but fact, not in my house.

We are once again off topic, if we wish to discuss this further perhaps a new thread should be started, I don't want to hijack this one.

Peace.

If I where to describe my beliefs, they'd delete the post, because it would be a 300 page book. Yes, I too can write a book about beliefs. ;)

Yes, anyone can. But could it withstand intense scrutiny like the Bible has been proven to be able to withstand?


I respect your right to believe what you want, and the belief that the bible is fact. I do not believe that, as the people who claim it is fact are all Christians, so understandably, the are a bit biased.

I respect your right to believe as you wish also, but while respecting that right, I don't believe that just because someone believes it, that it is automatically right.


I also "know" God, and what he has done in my life, without the bible and it's preachings. I believe without any physical evidence whatsoever, is that so hard to believe? Am I somehow less connected to God, in your eyes, because I do not believe in the bible?

I never said that you were or were not. I have said nothing regarding the validity of your beliefs. I have simply asked how you validate them.


Let me assure you, my belief in God is real, and no one can dispute it, because unlike the Christians, I do not try to backup my beliefs using a book.

I have no doubt that your belief is real - but belief does not mean that we are right. Even many who claim to be Christians are following false teachings - the Bible tell us that in Matt 7:21-23. Personal feelings and experience are not the best way to establish truth.

Tj3, at this point I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I cannot prove my faith, nor do I wish to, nor should I have to. We obviously believe in very different ways, and that's fine. I'm happy being a Deist, and I will remain one, I do not need proof, not in a book or any other way. Scary isn't it, I believe simply because I do. ;)

We really have strayed from the original topic, this is my last post here, unless someone wants to discuss the orignal post.

Good luck and God bless. :)

Tj3, at this point I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I cannot prove my faith, nor do I wish to, nor should I have to. We obviously believe in very different ways, and that's fine. I'm happy being a Deist, and I will remain one, I do not need proof, not in a book or any other way. Scary isn't it, I believe simply because I do. ;)

I don't know if your beliefs differ from mine - so far we have not discussed what you believe - I just asked how you validated that your beliefs were true. That is a fairly neutral question, so I am surprised that you do not wish to answer.

But that is your choice.

Tj3, I have no problem answering, but not on this thread, we are no longer discussing the original post. If you want an answer, please come to this thread;

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/bible-gods-word-mans-247235.html

Perhaps after reading this you will better understand my beliefs. If not, then ask and I'll do my best to clarify without writing a novel. ;)

See you there.

Tj3, I have no problem answering, but not on this thread, we are no longer discussing the original post. If you want an answer, please come to this thread;

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/bible-gods-word-mans-247235.html

Perhaps after reading this you will better understand my beliefs. If not, then ask and I'll do my best to clarify without writing a novel. ;)

See you there.

Before I ask what your beliefs are - I am interested in knowing how you validated them - which post in that thread addresses that point?

Before I ask what your beliefs are - I am interested in knowing how you validated them - which post in that thread addresses that point?
Tom : Alty stated very clearly : "Tj3, I have no problem answering, but not on this thread, we are no longer discussing the original post.
If you want an answer, please come to this thread " https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/bible-gods-word-mans-247235.html "

Don't you read posts any more before replying to them? Or are you back to aggressive posting, when someone fails to agree with your religious views ?

Alty also very clearly confirmed that she is a Deist. So are you back to harrassing others again? Is this the way you and your Bible group are "spreading the word", Tom?

Can we please return to the core of this topic, "Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions"?

:>)

.

Thread closed