What do you think about the Sextuplets that were just born in BC that will probably need blood transfusions?

Question

They come from parents that are Jehova's Witnesses. There can be a big risk that they die because they won't get blood transfusions. These babies were born premature and are in need of extra attention. Do you think it is wrong for parents to refuse needed medical treatment for their children because of their religion?

Answer 1

yes but it is not my place to place judgement

Answer 2

Isn't it ironic that the same people who feel Jehovah's Witnesses are so terrible in not allowing blood transfusions on their children, feel the parents should have killed them while still in utero, through a so-called "selective abortion!" Are they any less your child while they are inside you? The Bible says, "...Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards THE DAYS WHEN THEY WERE FORMED and there was not yet one among them." Psalms 139:13-16.
Read Exodus 21:22,23: if men were to struggle and hurt a pregnant woman and she lost the baby, they were to give soul for soul! Obviously God views an unborn baby as just that, an unborn BABY, a LIFE.
As previously stated, Jehovah's Witnesses love their children, and BECAUSE they love them, they follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood, not from medical help, blood only! Would you say we as humans know what is best for us, or God who made us?
I should add that the reason doctors often feel they need transfusions is because they've done so many blood tests that they've basically sucked the babies dry! What many doctors are now realizing, as was the case with a relative, that they can take micro samples, very small amounts to test, which is so much better for the babies.

Answer 3

No. I know for a fact the MANY dangers of Blood Transfusions. My Grandmother was told for years that if she did not have a transfusion SHE WOULD DIE and then an amount of time, usually a week was assigned. She would tell them she was a Witness. They would start to tell her why this and why that was not that bad. She would stop them and explain that she has ALWAYS refused blood. Even before she started studying. My Sister in Law's father actually lied on his paper work and said he was a Witness so they would not pressure him to take blood as there are ALLOT of risks. When the Child is old enough to decide then it is Rightfully that child's decision. Till then it is the duty of the Child's Guardian to decide what they feel is best.

Answer 4

Well, for starters, it seems odd to me. There hasn't been anything in the news if these babies were conceived naturally or by artificial means. The newspapers have all speculated that these were conceived by artificial means.

Now, that seems a bit odd that a JW couple would pursue IVF. If the JWs have such strong veiw points about blood transfusions, you'd think they'd have strong veiw points about the creation of life!

Personally, I think multiple births over 2 or 3 are risks, and selective reduction should be used to increase the chance of having a few healthy babies. It bothers me when people say, "I'm pregnant with 6 babies because of IVF, but I'm not going to do selective reduction because it's all God's will." Um, if it was all up to God, you wouldn't have needed to spend thousands of dollars on IVF! (Personally, I think IVF is selfish, when there are thousands of kids waiting to be adopted!!)

If this family doesn't allow for their children to have blood transfusions I think they're being hypocrits. They wanted medical technology to help them get pregnant, but now they won't get blood transfusions? That's just wrong.

Answer 5

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. We, by NO means, refuse needed medical attention. We refuse ONE option in a sea of options. As technology advances so do all the options available to us.

I have had the personal experience of refusing a blood transfusion. If you would like to know the details of my situation see this link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkCXj2iERvx0Q3mVuHzTDpHsy6IX?qid=20061219063938AA4TyX1&show=7#profile-info-f55f8ccf9f9614336f85a72fded924a0aa

Trust me these parents love their babies and want the best possible medical treatment for them. That does NOT have to include blood.

As Jehovah's Witnesses, we are encouraged to research a number of alternatives. We are directed to fill out a Medical Directive listing out ALL the alternatives we are individually comfortable using. We always discuss these alternatives with our doctors in advance (Just in case!!). We do not take the decision lightly. We do not think that praying for some miracle is better than medical care. That is some other religion, but I can't remember who.

I hope this helps all those who truly are concerned about the welfare of our children, and reassures them that we, as well, are concerned for our little ones.

Answer 6

That's one tough call. Unfortunately tonight on the news there is a rumour that one may have now died!

Answer 7

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in getting the best medical care available for themselves and their families. Many individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses are themselves physicians and other health care professionals.

It is sad when those who have theological differences with the Witnesses actively work to spread misinformation about their beliefs. The fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses have hundreds of hospital liaison committees around the globe to help advance nonblood medical management technologies and awareness in the medical community.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the scriptures demonstrate a clear pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.


Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)


Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.

"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)

By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)


Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?

"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)

"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)

"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29


Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.

An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 8

I agree with PIANOGAL7