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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

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=Altenweg]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

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" ?