The doctors in the Vancouver Sextuplets case...?

Question

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???

Wasn't only because of their religious beliefs in the first place that the babies weren't aborted???

Your thought's please...and try not to have this 'blind know it all' attitude about JW's and make attacks when you answer...I am not interesting in hearing them.

Do you think the parents didn't love their children if they gave the 2 that fighting chance to live?

Think also, once these blood transfusions were forced and the constitutional rights of the parents violated, where is the proof that the transfusions did anything???
The Doctor's themselves have said that they have made little if no difference.

So...yes...this is going to fly b/c there is no proof that the other 4 were any safer than before the transfusions.

ONCE AGAIN...folks...if you are going to answer this and refer the blood transfusions as "LIFE SAVING", please back it up with more than words.

Please supply the PROOF that this was life saving.

Mark my words: Lawsuit of astronomical proportions in a few years. The province will pay dearly soley for the fact that they seized the children without following due process, which was to have the situation addressed in a hearing before action was to be taken.
The reason why they promptly handed the children back when the parents put legal pressure on them.

Answer 1

Yes the parents deserve credit and support. I am so sick of some Doctors and arm chair quarterbacks, who know very little about blood transfusions, making statements about BTs being the salvation. People need to think about the fact years ago using leeches was The thing to do. As time has gone by people have learned more and more about the Dangers of BTs.

Answer 2

First, I want to say that I see both sides. The parents should have the right to practice their religion, BUT it becomes a grey area when their beliefs affect another human being (or in this case 4) who cannot make independent choices.

The doctors are only concerned with giving these babies the best chance to live. No matter what. Religion does not impact the BEST and most viable course of medical treatment. That stands no matter what.

As for if transfusions are really lifesaving, no one here can determine this. If the doctor determines the babies need blood, then blood will increase his chance for survival. Period. They already lost 2 babies (presumably because the parents refused needed transfusions), why risk more? Obviously holding off on the transfusions are NOT going to be beneficial. Since this cannot be proven, the best I can do is give a link which has parents talk about their child (who SURVIVED) AFTER the transfusions. Also note that today's blood supply is very safe, and this is NOT the reason JW forbid them.

http://www.shareyourstory.org/webx?[e-mail].0@.ee93fb9

Although I do want to give credit to the parents, and I do believe in patient's having free will, it is hard to extent that to the babies, who cannot speak for themselves.

I can't really logically say it was better to let these 2 babies be born to suffer and die either. And put the others at further risk.

My only concern is this...presumably the couple had fertility treatment (please correct me if I'm wrong, but that almost never happens without it). If they are willing to use science to create life, why not use science to save it? Perhaps rules were made by JW's back in the day to protect against the idea of harmful transfusions at the time. Or perhaps medical care was poorly understood. If there is no LOGICAL reason for the parents to avoid the transfusions, they should at least consider it.

However, they also have the right to let their babies die as they choose, I suppose. They are their children.

It's the same as anything else. Many informed parents make bad choices that put their kids at risk of harm. Some choices are not illegal but should be (such as allowing your child to become obese and get Type 2 diabetes and heart disease at age 10), whereas others such as neglect are.

If people decide that this is a form of neglect, the court had a right to take custody.

Answer 3

I totally agree!
It is so ironic that these doctors who are supposed to have the babies best interests at heart, would have ABORTED them just weeks ago! What hypocrites! It's only the PARENTS that gave them all a chance at life!
Now they've forced blood on at least two of them, and the paper says its made LITTLE difference!! Give me a break! The reason the doctors feel it necessary to give them blood in the first place, is because they suck them dry with all the blood tests they do, when they can easily take micro-samples instead, which has been done on Witness patients in the past!
The Bible is clear on abstaining from blood. And who would know what is best for us: the Almighty God who made us, or human doctors, who although may be well-meaning, are still imperfect?

Answer 4

First of all, whether you acknowledge it or not (or like it or not), there is a difference between aborting a fetus and allowing a child who has been born to die from neglect. I personally don't like the fact that there is a social distinction made there, but it is necessary for many reasons.

I don't think the parents don't love their children. But once the children have been born, they become the state's responsibility as well as the parents'. (Once again, I'm reluctant to assume a "pro-Big Brother" stance, but I must acknowledge the facts.) If the parents will not allow the children to obtain available, life-saving medicine, then they are not (in the state's perspective) acting in the children's best interest.

I know this sounds cold and unfeeling, but the decision made was a logical, political decision, as was the original option to abort suggested by the doctors.

Answer 5

i can see both sides of the story. fight to have them born yet the fight to live. they should be allowed to live, regardless of religious beleifs. even if the courts had to decide for them. i would not want to be in their shoes for anything. what are they going to tell the babes when they grow up? it's a tough decision, and i am glad the courts decided. if they ever do not want them, i would gladly take them all in. they have a right to life, like you and me.

have a nice day

Answer 6

The doctors suggested sacrificing two to save 4. The parents are suggesting murdering all of them by not giving them the transfusion they need.

It's not the same thing at all.

Nice try. Not going to fly.