This week in Vancouver BC Canada a couple had sextuplets. They were premature. Two of them died. In order to save the rest they need blood transfusion. However, the parents are JWs and it's against their religion to have blood transfusion. So they have to risk the lives of their babies to go without.
The government has apprehended the babies and have given blood transfusion to one of the babies. The parents are suing, thus getting their four babies back.
Who do you think is in the wrong here? Is it the government, for trying to save the babies' lives? Or the parents?
2007-01-31 17:29:09 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm glad to be able to comment on this. For the record, in the Winnipeg Free Press, it said, "the transfusions made little difference in the medical state of any of the children." So not only did it make LITTLE difference, but the parents' right to choose what medical treatments they wanted for their children, was taken away from them! Note, the parents were not refusing ANY treatment, just that particular form of treatment. Those choices are made everyday by parents! For example, if you have a child with cancer, the parents must decide, do they want to do chemo, or radiation, or surgery. How would you feel if YOUR rights were taken away, and someone else decided for you what was going to happen to your child??
In addition, isn't it unbelievably ironic, that the DOCTORS suggested to these parents, 'selective abortion' before the babies were born, ultimately killing some of them, and who refused????? The PARENTS! They chose to give ALL their babies a chance.
People need to realize blood transfusions are old school and are on the way out! There are better alternatives out there that don't introduce other infections and diseases into a body that is already unwell! Do some research and you will see, that those who DON'T have blood transfusions, do much better than those who do, and are often released from hospital earlier.
But of course the most important reason to not have a blood transfusion, is because the Bible is clear that it is wrong to.
(Acts 15:28, 29; Genesis 9:3, 4)
Jehovah's Witnesses love their children and want what is best for them! I applaud those parents and they are in my thoughts and prayers.
It boils down to this: Who knows what is best for us, Almighty God who made us, or imperfect human doctors????
2007-02-01 04:58:43 · answer #1 · answered by la la la 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What most are missing the point here, is not that the parents are saying they have a right for their babies to die, but that they have a right to accept certain types of medical treatment and not accept certain types of medical treatment. The court did sneak behind their backs and forced a type of medical treatment on the child(ren) without the parents informed consent.
What is also being missed, is the fact that there are many dangers of blood transfusions. Most medical experts would refuse a blood transfusion themselves because of the risks involved. Blood transfusions are dangerous. The obvious risk with this type of medical treatment is that of contracting a fatal disease and some non-fatal diseases, like AIDS, HIV, Hepatitis C,B, (and other forms of Hepatitis), Encephelitis, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease), and a whole slew of other diseases. Other dangers of blood transfusions are: Blood Transfusion Reaction (a serious life-threatening reaction to the transfused blood, which is more common than people are led to believe), and also being given the wrong blood type, which does happen, which can kill a person very quickly. Blood transfusions make people very sick. Your immune system goes haywire because you are receiving a foreign body in your body. Blood transfusions can kill and do. There are many cases where people have been given blood transfusions which were highly unnecessary and they have died. The media rarely, if ever, reports such cases.
Jehovah's Witnesses want the best possible medical treatment for themselves and for their children, that is why they go to hospitals and seek medical treatment. They have a right, as anyone else has a right to choose the types of medical treatment they wish. For example, do you ever see it in the news where someone refused chemotherapy for treatment of their cancer and chose to use another medical treatment and their child was taken away and forced chemotherapy? Or what about if a doctor told you that you had such a severe infection in your leg that if they did not amputate it above the knee you would die, but you had already done your own research and expressed that you wish to instead have high doses of antibiotics which will likely allow you to keep your leg, but the doctor refused to let you decide which treatment you should get, went to court behind your back, which in turn ordered your leg amputated? That would be a horrible injustice. Imagine how you would feel. And then to have the hospital turn around and say that you just wanted to die, when in fact you wouldn't have come to the hospital if you wanted to die.
The fact is, we as humans, have a right to choose what will be done to our body. Whether we will allow one medical treatment and not the other, is the choice of the person.
Not everything is the way it looks as the media portrays it.
2007-02-01 02:26:16 · answer #2 · answered by Kally 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure what all of Canada's religious liberty laws are, but just to suppose they are the same as America, I would say the government is wrong. The government cannot interfere with religious convictions, and if it is a conviction of the parents that blood transfusions are immoral, then the government cannot force it, because the parent, and not the government, is the legal guardian of the children.
In the same way, for instance, the government cannot force an infant to be baptized if the parents don't want it to be, nor can the government keep an infant from being baptized. I know the situation is different since actual life or death is involved............... But that is simply the cost of religious freedom.
Its a tough situation though, by all means, yet if there is any question of the parents faith being trampled on, the government should have declared neutrality.
2007-02-01 01:51:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ok...so let's get this straight.
The same Doctors that the week previous to the birth had suggested that two of the babies should be aborted (killing them), now use the parents religion as a basis to take them away by saying they are "looking out for the child's interests"?
Shouldn't the parents be given some credit for at least giving the babies that would have otherwise been aborted a fighting chance of survival regardless of their personal beliefs???
Because really, it was only because of their religious beliefs in the first place that the babies weren't aborted.
2007-02-02 02:31:56 · answer #4 · answered by I'm Superior In Every Way 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The parents are in the wrong. Terribly terribly wrong. They should go to prison for endangering the lives of four of their children.
What you want to bet its their claims of "religious reasons" are what is getting them out of trouble?
Btw, I am Canadian and its most definately right that the gvt gets mixed up in this because its those childrens LIVES that are on the line. The parents religion can just kiss my big shiny white butt.
Those kids lives are more important than the parents religion.
Its the same reason I'm glad the gvt legalized gay marriage regardless of what the people wanted. Because its the right thing to do for the PEOPLE.
Its not communistic at all. Its more leaning toward socialism. Remember, if you don't have your people, you have no country at all. Your people are the reason the country exists.
So how about you Americans stop being such freaks about that? You might find a little socialism will be to your benefit too. You wouldn't have many of the problems you currently do.
Incidentally, I know what the religious laws in this country are. And the gvt is right.
2007-02-01 01:47:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
This is a serious question, and all I can do is give you my opinion. I personally don't agree with the JW's, because God does use doctors, and he still preform miracles as well. One of the gospels called the book of Luke was written by Luke who was a physician, and God used him.
Is the sin, the blood transfusion or is the sin not trying to save those babies? What kind of parent would not try everything within their power to save their babies? I believe 100% in God, and in his healing, but I also know that he gave us a brain to reason with, and to use for wisdom. I personally have been healed by Jesus, and I have been healed through doctors. Jesus did things on the sabbath that did not seem right to the religious leaders, but he did them anyways. What I am trying to say is that it may not seem right to the JW church, but it may be the right thing for that family to give the transfusion. It is beyond me why they would not.
As far as the authorities taking charge, I think they did the right thing, but at the same time, who knows how far the government is allowed to go.
2007-02-01 01:59:52 · answer #6 · answered by Sandra M 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Everyone is trying to save the babies. The parents believe that God is right and not taking blood is a protection for their children despite what the doctors might think. The government is acting on the belief that the majority of doctors are right and that the children could actually benefit from taking blood. What it really boils down to is who knows more--the doctors or God??
2007-02-01 01:37:00 · answer #7 · answered by Sparkle1 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I think it's messed up that the JW's are allowed to inflict this kind of suffering and torment on their children in the name of religion. Personally I think the government is in the right. I hope these people don't get their kids back. I know that sounds cruel, but the remaining children have a right to live. They didn't have a choice who they were born to. Allowing the children to die just because their parents' religion states they can't have certain medical treatments involving blood products is equal to child abuse and murder in my opinion.
2007-02-01 01:44:22 · answer #8 · answered by swordarkeereon 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
From the government's point of view, they are in the right. (Governments are political, not religious) From the parent's point of view, it is wrong for them to accept a medical treatment that is not only contradictory, but in direct defiance of a direct biblical command.
Acts 15:28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
Deuteronomy 12:23 Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh. 24 You must not eat it. You should pour it out upon the ground as water. 25 You must not eat it, in order that it may go well with you and your sons after you, because you will do what is right in Jehovah’s eyes.
Acts 15:20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
The apostolic decree was long understood as binding. Eusebius tells of a young woman near the end of the second century who, before dying under torture, made the point that Christians "are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals." She was not exercising a right to die. She wanted to live, but she would not compromise her principles. Do you not respect those who put principle above personal gain?
Scientist Joseph Priestley stated: "The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity . . . If we interpret [the] prohibition of the apostles by the practice of the primitive Christians, who can hardly be supposed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians".
I think that it is reasonably clear that anyone who is a Christian in practice VS name will NOT accept blood in any form.
2007-02-01 01:51:11 · answer #9 · answered by sixfoothigh 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The parents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for attempted man slaughter. Thankfully, the Government had stepped in and prevented the rest of the babies from dying.
2007-02-01 01:40:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋