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 would know what is best for us, Almighty God who made us, or imperfect human doctors?
2007-02-01 04:55:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by la la la 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
Wow la la la....very nicely put. I totally agree with you. It's true, the doctors were the ones encouraging abortion and then also encouraging not to resuscitate if one or all of the babies came out not breathing. Of course the parents who value life so very much and want to give their kids a chance blantantly refused.But now that they are in the spotlight, the doctors want to acts holier-than-thou and act like they have always had the babies' best interests at heart...not saying they are bad doctors or that they don't care at all.
So many other options are available than blood transfusions and more and more people-including doctors themselves, are choosing those alternatives. (Blood expanders, recycling your own blood, freezing your own blood, Cell replacement, etc, etc.) The little babies with approximately one dixie cup worth of blood were poked and prodded with all these needles and have the little amount of blood they do have withdrawn...and then they say they need a transfusion. There were so many other tests that they could have given those babies besides just sticking them like a pin cushion.
There are many instances where people have taken blood transfusions and it did them no good...or, even more harm. One girl died from an allergic reaction to the foreign blood and then my friend's grandmother died after she contracted a disease from a transfusion.
Any form of surgery can be done without blood....heart, brain, etc, etc. If people do not know about the alternatives and do not know or care about the sacredness of blood, then they may not understand why certain people do not accept blood transfusions. But there are so many other (safer) options out there that do the job of transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses along with any other person, is not against.
So sorry, I do not agree with your opinion. The government totalyl infringed the rights of the parents and now that they have given the kids the transfusions, if something bad happens to one or all of the babies, they will be blaming the parents because now they have been handed back to them.
This issue has been raised many times before where parents have had their rights taken away from them, and people see how it is not fair. How can they have rights when the governnent repeatedly steps on those and makes decisions for them-that often do not even make that big of a difference.
If a doctor says "your child will die without a transfusion" why are they not offering other alternatives that are just as accessible and more effective and can they guarantee the child will not die if they receive a transfusion? No
If we consider the men and women who go out and fight and kill in wars heroes because they are dying for their country, then why do we not also consider people who are willing to die for their God heroes?...eventhough death is the last thing they want and perhaps not going to happen if they receive the treatments they do accept.
2007-02-04 03:54:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mackenzie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sextuplets without fertility drugs? Not mentioned. Why, with their religious beliefs, were they with a conventional doctor at a conventional hospital? They appear to have poor footing for any claims of their rights and how they raise those kids will be another wonder. Those children will one day be able to make their own decisions. Quite a mess for media fodder.
Sorry, main issue. Religious tenets vs life saving procedures. Believe in people having religious freedom with boundaries. They want to live in general society = can't accept the benefits if they don't want to live by the general concensus/laws of that society. Saving & protecting life is the general law. Big issue. Back to - how did they achieve sextuplets - was that natural - part of their 'religion'?
2007-01-31 23:53:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Quest 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
i think the B.C. goverment did the right thing, a child that has no idea of its own life ,has the right to be protected from backward religious zealots, i hope one of the parents get deathly ill and succumbs to a currable disease but resists all modern medicine to die a painfull death , in the future may those kids see there parents for what they are !!!!! ,
2007-02-02 13:39:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by crashmontana 1
·
0⤊
0⤋