Canadian government taking babies away?

Question

I'm curious as to what others think about that story in which the Canadian government took away three of the sextuplet babies (there were six born) from their parents. The parents were Jehovah's Witnesses and would not allow blood transfusions on the babies. They did not say the babies couldn't be operated on at all or anything like that, but that blood transfusions couldn't be used during the process.

The Canadian government said that the babies would die without the transfusions, so they took them away from the parents. Did the Canadian government do the right thing, or did they violate the rights of the parents?



For the record, the Jehovah's Witnesses use various scriptures of the Bible (despite what some think, Jehovah's Witnesses are in fact Christian) to justify the no-blood transfusion idea. The main one is in Acts. I don't remember the exact chapter/verse, but it says don't take in blood. Many say this means don't eat blood, the Witnesses say it means at all.

They do provide alternative possibilities though. New medicines have been found that increase bone marrow production of blood, or increase volume of blood to keep up blood pressure during the operation. So they don't say die without trying, but they don't allow transfusions even if it means death.

What does everyone else think of this idea, and what the Canadian gov't did?

There is something I've seen a couple of times that I do like that it was pointed out. Blood transfusions have certainly done a lot for people, but they had many complications that came with them. The biggest one being that many diseases came with them (including things like HIV and Hepatitis). Screening has become more advanced, and much less gets through, but there are still some diseases that get through and infect the patient.

I have found doctors (like most scientists), are hard people to convince of something; but once they are convinced, they have trouble ever letting go of it. There are other options to blood transfusions, and research has suggested these other options work better and faster, and are much safer than transfusions.

But doctors as an overall whole have it in their mind transfusions are the
end all/be all of saving lives (in heavy trauma/operations situations). So many refuse to work with anything else, and that is a shame. Much could be done if the

effort were put forward to advance these technologies, which would practically end all chance of disease-transmission from blood not properly screened.

I say this whether you agree with what the gov't did or not. You may still believe blood transfusions are the best right now (and you may be right, or you could be wrong); but if it is the best choice now it won't be forever. We've got to learn to follow all possible avenues of advancement in medicine, that is how we can really help ourselves now.

Answer 1

What is to prevent the government (in its infinite wisdom) from deciding that a particular newborn boy needs a circumcision, or a newborn girl needs cosmetic surgery to "correct" a birthmark? When the parents give clear evidence of studiously working to protect and prolong their child's life and best interests, the parents should be given the respect and dignity befitting any other serious family decision.


Ironically, the fact remains undisputed that many MULTIPLES more have died as a direct or indirect result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.

Fair-minded healthcare experts admit that the medical technologies exist to treat literally every illness and injury without resorting to the old-fashioned infusion of whole blood, plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells. Perhaps pro-blood activists (and/or anti-Witness critics) ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (the only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).


Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine or anti-technology, and they do not have superstitious ideas about some immortal "soul" literally encapsulated in blood. Instead, as Christians, the Witnesses seek to obey the very plain language of the bible regarding blood.

As Christians, they are bound by the bible's words in "the Apostolic Decree". This decree was the first official decision communicated to the various congregations by the twelve faithful apostles (and a handful of other "older men" which the apostles had chosen to add to the first century Christian governing body in Jerusalem). The decree helps demonstrate that the first century Christian congregation was highly organized, and that the holy spirit actively assists those "taking the lead" to make correct decisions.

Here is what the "Apostolic Decree" said, which few self-described Christians obey or even respect:

(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

(Acts 15:28-29) 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.


Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree quite plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.

A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?


Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses certainly do not believe that any blame belonging to knowing or unknowing sinners could be somehow transferred to unconscious or unwilling victims.

Answer 2

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????

Answer 3

There are many alternatives to blood transfusions, so it is ridiculous to say that without a blood transfusion a person would die.

The exact same thing happened to my parents on 3 separate occasions when they refused blood for my brother. All three times after the state was awarded custody, my brother recovered and did not end up needing a blood transfusion at all.

Answer 4

They were completely out of line. These parents were not even given the opportunity to present their case to the Judge as they had been told they would.

I too, had the experience of refusing a blood transfusion. My red cell count was a 2. 10 is where they want you.

I had done my research and before going to the hospital I filled out a Medical Directive. I gave the doctor and hospital each a copy explaining the 3-4 options I would be willing to use instead of blood JUST IN CASE it became an issue.

My doctor was like many here who think we would rather die or let our babies die then get treatment. So she was going to send me home with Iron pills. My mother had a fit and asked her why she would send me home. My doctor said if she wants to die she can do it at home, not here.

I tried to get my doctor to pull my Medical Directive from my chart. She refused. We called in a Brother from the Medical Liason Committee who was specifically trained to help explain our stand and the alternatives we would accept. She refused to speak with him.

Finally, after getting another doctor on board, I was able to stay in the hospital. I stayed a total of five days. I was give erythropoetin (sp?). A medicine commonly given to cancer patients with anemia. It makes your bone marrow make red blood cells at a faster rate.

I was a 2. Now, I am fine. There is no guarantee the blood transfusion would have made my experience better. There is, however, a guarantee that my doctors bullheadedness would have killed me. Then she could have told everyone. See, if she had just had a blood transfusion.

I see alot of similarities to how my doctor felt about me and how their doctor is treating them. Everyone already has their mind made up and no one wants to listen.

Answer 5

First of all, JWs do not like their kids to die. I believe no parents like that. JWs believe in the command in Acts 15:29 to “abstain from blood”. That means we should prevent any sort of blood (animal or human) to go IN to your body. If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, “abstain from nuts”, that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused.

JWs like to have alternatives to blood transfusion. I know someone who asked a doctor in Alberta, Canada about cell saver, other blood alternative products and they said that they do not have one and those are only found in US.

The problem in BC is that the parents were not given a fair hearing which they are entitled to, I think they were not given alternatives to blood, and the government just forced and get those babies and gave them blood transfusion.

Please note, that in Canada, if the woman is pregnant, the doctors ask the parents if they want this certain kind of test to determine if the child is mentally disabled , (I forgot what it is called) , and if the parents find that the babies are not healthy or disabled that they have an option to ABORT. JWs do not believe in abortion.

In BC, just before the kids were born, doctors told the JW parents to decide if they wanted the infants to have help breathing - that without resuscitation they would die.

The parents respect the sanctity of life - that's their religious views - and they chose resuscitation," said the JWs father.

Now, isn’t a hypocrisy that these people, who gave options to parents to have their unborn babies to be aborted and die, once they are born will take the kids from the parents and say we are protecting the babies because they don’t want blood transfusion? They took their babies from the parents, forced the government’s will, and say “we are saving/protecting the babies”.

The parents are acting in harmony with God’s word. JWs want alternatives to blood transfusions. Unfortunately, some doctors do not respect that.

I think the government in Canada allows abortion, marijuana usage, so does that mean that because the government allow those, that Christians will approve of doing and using those?

Answer 6

I am saddened deeply by the whole thing. The fact that in all of this, I rarely see people mentioning how terrible it is what those poor parents are experiencing. I remember the Doctors often tried to push my grandmother in to taking transfusions. She said NO. They would explain to her that she had a day/week to live and that just because she was a Witn-- She would stop them there. She explained that she has ALWAYS opposed BTs. One of the things she loved about learning about Jehovah was seeing that safe gaurds are given in the Bible. If the family in Canada were not Witnesses but still said no to blood I wonder if the news would have cared. It is amazing how well history repeats itself. At one point Leeches were THE thing to use. I am sure that there were some who ridiculed those who said no to leeches.

Answer 7

Both the government and the Jehovah's Witnesses did what they felt was in the best interests of the babies. By refusing blood, the Witnesses were looking to God as the highest and best authority, knowing that the babies would be resurrected and live again with Jehovah's help, even if they died in this system. By taking the babies away, the government was holding the doctors as the highest and best authority, looking only at the temporary situation. Who really is the highest and best authority?? I choose God.

Answer 8

Canadians always strike me a very quiet civilised people. We have all gotten so used to the overkill that occurs with any event in the USA that the Canadian viewpoint begins to look like inertia! I would plump for the Canadian way of life any time. They quietly get on with things, no mass hysteria, chest thumping or heaven forbid, assassination attempts! Let the USA take all the attention and leave Canada to go quietly about being a good place to live.

Answer 9

I am a Canadian and I heard about this. The Canadian gov't has a history of doing things like this, unfortunately it's not always in the best interest of the family or the child. And in this situation, is it better to deny a family their religion or a child his life?

I, as a person with unusual beliefs would probably side with the family. Although I don't agree with all the JW teachings, when the government starts to legislate morality without being moral, there is a serious problem.

Mostly, Canadians are bleeding hearts. Many are pretty left-wing and that's not all good.

Answer 10

there was already a question like this on here before! except for you have set up the same story from a different point of view....(the results of biased news stations)

Here was my deal, I didnt like the fact the JW were being a little old timey and religious in there way of not allowing a blood transfusion. It Seems ridiculous to me.

however

I really hated the fact that the governement stepped in and took control of the children. This to me is communistic. This to me is supporting hilary clinton in her statement "kids dont belong to the parents but to the government"

that sits very sickly in my stomache.