Your thoughts on transfusion issue re: Vancouver Sextuplets?

Question

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=12591a0a-d239-4b72-82f4-9bf455e1a8c9&k=51852

In Vancouver, BC, a woman has given birth to sextuplets. She and her husband are Jehovah's Witnesses, and the question has arisen as to what will happen if the babies require blood transfusions, as is often necessary with premature neonates. Please read the article at the above link, and let me know your thoughts.

Answer 1

I read the article and felt proud to be Canadian. Having said that, I fear for the children (if the courts prevail) because of how they'll be viewed/treated by their fundamentalist parents as they're growing up. Fundamentalism has been variously described by many authors, but to me it really boils down to a rather simple test. A fundamentalist religion is a religion - any religion - that, when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring and conformity to doctrine, will almost certainly choose the latter. Regardless of the effect it has on its loved ones or the local society of which it is a part. And thanks to modern telecommunications, global society is quickly becoming local society. We're living in interesting times.

Answer 2

Hi, thanks for the article, I have been answering about this all night and no one has been willing to say where they got the info.

I think it is important to note the neonatologist said it is Often, not always, viewed as needed. Also he said in their unit. It could be they do not have much bloodless procedural experience. I as an avid researcher of the Bible know it is wrong in God's eyes to use blood. I also know that Doctors often recommend something as THE solution, instead of as A solution.
I think they have a hard road ahead of them. I know it would be that much harder if, either their children live or die, they know they went against the Bible.
If the children live and they use blood the parents will have the guilt of going against their convictions and they will face the MANY complications of accepting blood.
If they accept the transfusion and the babies still die, which is a possability if the situation is as dire as it sounds, which remember things are often blown out of preportion, then they will have lost 1-6 babies and ave gone against thier beliefs.
IF the children do not receive blood and die they will know they did what they could within the Bible's constraints, and that it still would not have been a sure thing.
IF however, as does often happen, the babies live and they do not give them blood, the parents will know they did the right thing and it turned out right and they will not need to worry about rejection or aids.

No matter what happens my heart goes out to them. They need love and support. Not armshair quarter backing. I hope things go well.

Answer 3

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;...

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 4

Please note what happened the last time "government" played God.

The Dionne quintuplets were Canada's most famous multiple birth. The five identical sisters, born in a small Ontario town in 1934, were hailed as a medical miracle and, at the time, were the only known quintuplets to survive more than a few days.

Their case, however, quickly turned tragic as the Ontario provincial government, which deemed their parents unfit, put them in a specially built hospital where they became a moneymaking tourist attraction during the Depression. The three surviving quints eventually sued the provincial government and received a $2.8 million settlement


I also think it is interesting that the main reason pre-mie's need blood is because of the "blood" the doctors take from the babies for 'testing'

Instead of judging, ask yourself, Is my faith strong enough to stand firm for God, under all tests.

Answer 5

people believes must be respected, it is hard to explain why but I will try little words
the question is, how many children died because of adults' believes ?
the answers is thousands or millions.
how?
when adults were trying to defended their rights,freedom,lands,religions etc.
when adults fight a battle in a way or another the result and consequences will be reflected on their families,children and to some extant on their people.

second part
what is the percentage from those children will carry different believes from their families? very low.
in Jehovah's witnesses,blood transfusions is not allowed,and this is in what they believe and if you going to stop them they will fight you in a battle to prove in what they believe,and the child you survived will become an adult and maybe one day will have car accident and will refuse the infusion of blood and will die.

when you born you carry your family believes till you prove otherwise.

Answer 6

I have no comment on the religious aspect of the scenario.

The hospital that they are in, is a very good hospital. The medical staff are specialists and very capable at what they do. The babies are in good hands!

Answer 7

Hi there.

Well, as a committed Christian, I endeavour to be obedient to what the Bible teaches. I'm sure that many sincere JW's act in a likewise manner. However, is the Bible actually "clear on blood transfusions" as Mark Ruge asserts ? Having read through the whole Bible & studied it for over seven years now, I would argue against that assertion.

Obviously, the medical procedure of transfusing blood did not exist during the time that the Bible was written. Therefore, how do JW's justify their abstention from blood ?

Jehovah's Witnesses' point to both the Old and New Testament to support their argument. In particular, they draw attention to Leviticus chapter 17 (OT), which prohibits the consumption of animal blood in meat (what we recognise today as Jewish Kosher dietary law). The reason the Bible gives for this is found in verse 11 of the chapter - It states that the blood of animal's has been set aside by God for use in the Jewish sacrificial system, for the purpose of atoning for sin. Many Christian theologians agree that the use of animal blood in this way was a symbolic representation of the perfect sacrifice to come of Jesus Christ to atone for mankind's sin against God.

The context of Leviticus 17 makes it very clear that the blood prohibition is in regard to animal's blood, not human blood. However, JW's amazingly misinterpret this passage to reapply the prohibition to the "consumption" of blood in general, i.e. blood transfusions.

In the NT, Acts chapter 15 details an assembly of the early church leaders who have met to consider the question of Gentile (non - Jewish) believers in Jesus and how they relate to the observance of the OT Mosaic law. The assembly eventually reach the conclusion that they should abstain from food offered to idols, blood, things (animals for food) strangled and sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). Arguably, the first three prohibitions were given to avoid Gentile Christians offending the sensibilities of Jewish Christians & potential Jewish converts.

It is clear that the blood prohibition in this context is not, as JW's would claim, a general prohibition on blood, as the commandment to abstain from blood is quite clearly sandwiched between two other dietary restrictions in this verse. Unfortunately for the many JW's who have died refusing blood transfusions, the Watchtower Society (JW organisation) have continued to persist in this erroneous interpretation of the Bible.

Hope this helps.

Blessings.

- Edit -

With all due respect to the above poster, one cannot sufficiently address the news item in question without addressing the religious aspect. The situation cannot be properly understood without first taking into account what motivates JW's to take the stance that they do, hence, my explanation which relates to their misinterpretation of certain Bible passages.

Thanks.

PS For the record, Ishvarlan is a Jehovah's Witness. Godless - I appreciate that you are an agnostic atheist, but for the purpose of clarifying my points regarding the very costly JW misinterpretation of the Bible, would you care to look up Leviticus 17 for yourself ? Does it refer to animal or human blood ? Do you think that one can reasonably draw the conclusion that God prohibits potentially life - saving blood transfusions from this passage ?

Answer 8

Another twisting of scripture and misinterpretation of the point of the Kosher Law - an embarrassment. Somebody should kidnap those kids.

Answer 9

I think she should either accept all medical help or none if she does not wont it then take them home now and watch them die it is not natural to have sextuplits I am sure she has already had some mediacal intervention.

Answer 10

I don't know really. My first thoughts would be for the babies but if they would be rejected by the parents because they were "soiled" later I can't imagine that would be better.