What do you think?

Question

The Jehovah's Witness parents of the four surviving sextuplets born in B.C. Women and Children's Hospital are accusing the B.C. Ministry of Children and Families of violating their parental rights by seizing three of their children in order to administer blood transfusions.
Which out weighs the other, The parents religious rights or the health and saftey of the children.



Their belief is based on an understanding of the biblical admonition to "keep abstaining from blood" based on Acts 15:28, 29 (NWT).

Govenment following guidlines and procedures from the Child and Family Services Act of Canada?

Answer 1

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 though well-meaning, imperfect human doctors????

Answer 2

There is no guarantee that blood would save any of their lives. In fact, I read that "the blood transfusions made little difference in the medical state of the children."

I also 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.

My doctor treated me the same way these parents are being treated. They are not being listened to. The babies could be given a plethora of alternative treatments. Just as I did.

Answer 3

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 4

You know, this question has been debated to death (no pun intended) while I was getting my law degree. It's still a VERY grey area. My personal view is that the government must step in for these blood transfusions, regardless of what the parents say. If it's a grown Jehovah's Witness with free thought, then you should respect their religion. But these are infants just born. They don't have a say. Hell, they don't even know that they're Jehovah's Witnesses. Personally, I think it's disgraceful and silly that the parents choose their religion over their children.

Answer 5

I would assume that the babies were made wards of the state prior to administering blood against parental wishes. If there was no court order I think the hospital is in big trouble.

Answer 6

The health and safety of a child always supersedes the religious beliefs of the parents. When an adult refuses medical attention due to their religious beliefs that is one thing but when they deny necessary medical treatment to their children, who cannot make up their own mind, the law must step in.

Answer 7

some beliefs that are contrary to law are illegal. take for example in the early days of the mormon church, polygamy was practiced and the government actively prosecuted the polygamist. i think that the government in this case was correct in intervening on behalf of the sextuplets.

Answer 8

In the old testament of the Christian bible, it ALSO says you can beat a disobediant child to DEATH. I suppose it would be just as hard to explain THAT one also.............. I mean many religions and bibles are fraught with concepts that would seemingly allow men to kill their wives, children and do many things that are illegal under the law................... I cannot kill in the name of "God" and NOT go to jail.

There is religion and then there is LAW...... If the law prohibits you from acting under your religion, then you have every right to sue, but you have to be realistic.

How many of us would be up for a good ol fashioned STONING for having premarital sex, or living in sin?????????? Half the population would be stoned to death.......

Answer 9

Health and Safety of the childern should always come first