Blood transfusions forced on JW infants

[Goofball]

http://lpaula.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/update-on-sextuplets-born-in-vancouver/

This has been getting pretty big press here. A Vancouver family was recently blessed with sextuplets. Two of them have already died. The government has had to step in and temporarily take three of the children into custody in order to give them medically required blood transfusions, because their JW parents were refusing permission for same.

Thoughts on this?

Personally, being a father of two (one of whom is only 6 days old as we speak) it sickens me that parents would let adherence to religious dogma kill their children.

Kudos to the government on this one. Call it nanny-state if you want, but apparently some people require a bit of nannying.

[GoreBag]

I laughed when I heard the hubbub about it. If it came to me, I'd be pretty pissed off about another party screwing with my kids in any way I deemed inappropriate, but their cult isn't one I respect...that's basically what it boils down to.

[Redleg]

Now this seems a little hypcritical to me on the part of the parents. Most times from what I know of subject to have more then triplets doesn't it require the use of medicine and doctors anyway - ie the fertility of the human body really exceeds twins or triplets as far as I am aware.

So if they used modern medicine to concieve the children - it should not be against their moral code to use modern medicine to save their children.

Edit: And God would of forgave them for going against the moral code of no blood transfusions in if it was done to save the innocent.

Oh well I don't defend fundmentalists that place their children in danger of death. Regardless of what religion or purpose they might believe it serves.

Children are to be protected and cherished.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

So if they used modern medicine to concieve the children - it should not be against their moral code to use modern medicine to save their children.

But doesn't Witness-ism (?) specifically prohibit transfusions? I don't think there's any corresponding 'Thou shalt not have fertility treatment' in Acts.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Quite frankly, I'd be inclined not to give the children back.

[Redleg]

But doesn't Witness-ism (?) specifically prohibit transfusions? I don't think there's any corresponding 'Thou shalt not have fertility treatment' in Acts.

Nicely put - since I don't remember where it states anything in the bible about blood transfusions. It has some passages on blood - but I don't remember any about saving one's life from blood transfusions is anywhere against the christian religious code.



This seems like a no-brainer to me. Quite frankly, I'd be inclined not to give the children back.

Depends if they were still at risk or not. Its hard for the state to keep one's kids when the parents want them back.

[Watchman]

Seems pretty straighforward to me. Not getting infants the medical attention they need quite possibly to survive has to pretty definitely fall under "criminal neglicence" nevermind breach quite a few laws concerning childcare and whatnot. In which case the intervention of authorities is de rigeur.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Nicely put - since I don't remember where it states anything in the bible about blood transfusions. It has some passages on blood - but I don't remember any about saving one's life from blood transfusions is anywhere against the christian religious code.

I just looked it up, and apparently it's due to an interpretation of a passage from Acts 15:20-"[To abstain from things] polluted by contact with idols, from fornication, from anything that has been strangled and from blood."

[Edit: Goofball got there first. Seems I missed a few.]

[Goofball]

Now this seems a little hypcritical to me on the part of the parents. Most times from what I know of subject to have more then triplets doesn't it require the use of medicine and doctors anyway - ie the fertility of the human body really exceeds twins or triplets as far as I am aware.

So if they used modern medicine to concieve the children - it should not be against their moral code to use modern medicine to save their children.

It struck me that way as well Red. But from what I understand, JWs are fairly open to all aspects of modern medicine, with the exception of blood transfusions. They apparently base this doctrine on four passages from the Bible:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifGenesis 9:4 "But flesh (meat) with...blood...ye shall not eat"http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifLeviticus 17:12-14 "...No soul of you shall eat blood...whosoever eateth it shall be cut off"http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifActs 15:29 "That ye abstain...from blood..."http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifActs 21:25 "...Gentiles...keep themselves from things offered to idols and from blood..."

For more details, see here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm

It seems to me even with my own very limited knowledge of the Bible that their interpretation is extremely questionable.

But as you said, children are to be protected and cherished. As far as I'm concerned, that means religious dogma takes a very poor second place to practical health concerns when making medical decisions about one's children.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I just looked it up, and apparently it's due to an interpretation of a passage from Acts 15:20-"[To abstain from things] polluted by contact with idols, from fornication, from anything that has been strangled and from blood."

Wouldn't the fornication qualification preclude having children themselves? :inquisitive:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Hey, I didn't make the rules. ~;)

[Watchman]

Wouldn't that fly right in the face of "multiply and cover the Earth" or however that bit now went ?

[Xiahou]

Wouldn't the fornication qualification preclude having children themselves? :inquisitive:
Huh? ~:confused:

I'm very uncomfortable with government telling parents how to raise their children- but a blood transfusion seems like such basic medical care that denying it crosses the line into abuse.

[Papewaio]

Darwin Award?

[Watchman]

You only get that from getting yourself killed in an egregiously stupid way, methinks. Other people don't count.

...else assorted senior military leaders and politicos would hog them all... ~:wacko:

[Papewaio]

You get a Darwin award for an act of stupidity that results in the removal of your genes from the gene pool.

Mind you it is normally done before conception of the next generation.

[Watchman]

That'd be cheating. No pain no gain. :whip:

[Tribesman]

Wouldn't the fornication qualification preclude having children themselves?

Well that has been changed , the old stance of not having children because the end is nigh got dropped when the world didn't end when they thought it would .
I wonder what the stance is on medical proceedures involving other human bodily fluids , spit for example ?

Anyway , wierd isn't it , how much an unchanging fundamental interpretation can change so much over the years .~;)

[ajaxfetish]

Wouldn't the fornication qualification preclude having children themselves? :inquisitive:
AFAIK, and according to all the definitions I'm looking up to verify it, fornication is definitionally sex between unmarried partners. I didn't see anything in the article to suggest the parents are not married.

As to the scriptural basis, Jehovah's Witnesses have many very specific interpretations of scripture that I consider highly questionnable. There's a fine line between respecting others rights to their own interpretations and religious dogmas, and intervening when the rights of others are at stake, as in this case. I expect Canadian law would require them to provide this care for their children, and if they don't like it, they should move elsewhere.

Ajax

edit: as to the fornication issue, I think Jack Handey said it best. "I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex."

[BDC]

It's child abuse. There's absolutely no excuse for such stupid behaviour. Now people refusing medical treatment for themselves isn't an issue, they can do whatever they feel like, but they shouldn't be allowed to kill their children out of some silly beliefs.

[Spetulhu]

It's child abuse.

Could one use this angle to declare the JW a criminal organisation?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Question: How many who are admantly for the state taking away someone's kids to protect them were, strangely, strongly against the state taking action to prevent Terry Schiavo from being killed?

CR

[Kralizec]

Question: How many who are admantly for the state taking away someone's kids to protect them were, strangely, strongly against the state taking action to prevent Terry Schiavo from being killed?

CR

Bit of a dodgy analogy there. Sure, some kids act as if they're brain dead, but most really aren't. :balloon2:

[Goofball]

Question: How many who are admantly for the state taking away someone's kids to protect them were, strangely, strongly against the state taking action to prevent Terry Schiavo from being killed?

CR

I was.

Point?

Get back to me when you are no longer anti-choice and pro-death penalty.

(Figured I would throw that one in since we have entered the "comparing apples to oranges" section of the discussion)

:yes:

[Kralizec]

I'm sorry, I thought we were comparing apples to cheeseburgers?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I was.

Point?

Get back to me when you are no longer anti-choice and pro-death penalty.

(Figured I would throw that one in since we have entered the "comparing apples to oranges" section of the discussion)

:yes:

The point is, you approve the gov't stepping in to protect these children because the parents are not doing what you think is best, by denying them medical treatment, but you don't want the government to step in when a husband wants his wife to be killed by deny her medical treatment that she is recieving.

I see no problem with being anti-murder and pro-death penalty.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

I'm sorry, I thought we were comparing apples to cheeseburgers?

Well then in that case - cheeseburgers are better. In fact the greasier the better. Add a little tomato, onion, pickel, mustard, and to spice it up a little jalipeno pepper and you have a wonderful meal.:smash:

[Goofball]

The point is, you approve the gov't stepping in to protect these children because the parents are not doing what you think is best, by denying them medical treatment, but you don't want the government to step in when a husband wants his wife to be killed by deny her medical treatment that she is recieving.

What it came down to in the Schiavo case was that the husband claimed that Terry had in previous discussions made her wishes clear: that she would not want to be kept alive if she were ever in a vegetative state. Terry's parents, on the other hand, claimed that Terry would never had made such a request. So for me, the only question was, do I believe the husband or not, because I believe it was Terry's right to refuse treatment for herself.

Just as I believe that parents of these sextuplets would be withing their rights to refuse treatment for themselves. But the parents in this case are not claiming that they are really acting on the wishes of the children themselves, they say only that their wishes are that their children don't receive this life-saving treatment. They aren't even claiming to be acting in the kids' interests, as Michael Schiavo at least claimed.

That is the issue that makes the two cases entirely different. Of course you can add to it that Terry would require life support for the rest her life, but would never recover, vs. the fact that these sextuplets require only a routine medical procedure to get them through the next few weeks, after which they will live normal, happy and healthy lives.

Fenring had the right of it: you are comparing apples to cheeseburgers.


I see no problem with being anti-murder and pro-death penalty.

Crazed Rabbit

Of course you don't. Being anti women's rights and pro state-sanctioned murder go hand in hand.

:juggle2:

[Tribesman]

So for me, the only question was, do I believe the husband or not, because I believe it was Terry's right to refuse treatment for herself.

OK off on the apple favoured cheeseburger case , didn't it turn out that most of the claims presented by the parents and campaingners in that case turned out to be completely false .:yes:

[GoreBag]

I'm sorry, I thought we were comparing apples to cheeseburgers?

On that note, onion rings: manliest sidedish in existence?

[lars573]

No that would be fries supereme. As, in typical male fashion, it's total overkill. French fries+chesse-like-substance+sour cream+beef bits+tomatoes+chives=overkill.

[BDC]

The children would die due to their parents' beliefs. Sounds like child abuse to me.

Adults can believe whatever stupid stuff they want to believe, don't have an issue with that. But forcing these beliefs on their children is wrong, and the state has to protect children. How is withholding medical treatment any different from beating your children? The state would intervene in either case.

[Sir Moody]

Am I the only one who thinks it’s a bad idea when the state and doctors interfere like this??? (Oh boy am I going to get flack for this)

Basically the state has said in no unclear terms that this multinational religious group is wrong and not considered capable to decide on their children’s future

now I am highly against any form a State interference which removes the choice from anyone - freedom to believe what they want is supposed to be a fundamental right in any democracy - the state has effectively said that the JW do not have this right.

Now I am probably going to be called heartless and other such nonsense - I don’t agree with the parents but it was their choice not mine, and unless they were proven mentally incapable of making it the state shouldn’t get involved.

i think the episode of Babylon 5 "Believers" 105 (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/010.html) summarizes why i think its a bad idea for the state to interfere - while its fiction and i doubt the JW would do the same as the parents in the episode it is likely that if given back the children would never be accepted into the JW community and so would be ostracized by their parents and peers - not a good life to lead and so now the state will have to take responsibility for its actions...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Am I the only one who thinks it’s a bad idea when the state and doctors interfere like this??? (Oh boy am I going to get flack for this)

Basically the state has said in no unclear terms that this multinational religious group is wrong and not considered capable to decide on their children’s future

now I am highly against any form a State interference which removes the choice from anyone - freedom to believe what they want is supposed to be a fundamental right in any democracy - the state has effectively said that the JW do not have this right.

Now I am probably going to be called heartless and other such nonsense - I don’t agree with the parents but it was their choice not mine, and unless they were proven mentally incapable of making it the state shouldn’t get involved.

i think the episode of Babylon 5 "Believers" 105 (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/010.html) summarizes why i think its a bad idea for the state to interfere - while its fiction and i doubt the JW would do the same as the parents in the episode it is likely that if given back the children would never be accepted into the JW community and so would be ostracized by their parents and peers - not a good life to lead and so now the state will have to take responsibility for its actions...

How do you know that the children want to be bound by the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever met someone who has left the religious belief of their parents when they grew up?

:inquisitive:

[Beirut]

How do you know that the children want to be bound by the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever met someone who has left the religious belief of their parents when they grew up?

:inquisitive:

Children are bound by their parent's beliefs. It's the natural order of things.

I'm not sure I see the alternative. We can't have the state or the neighbours setting the standards for how we raise our children, we set the standards ourselves.

Intervention by the state in family religious matters is a very touchy area.

[Sir Moody]

How do you know that the children want to be bound by the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever met someone who has left the religious belief of their parents when they grew up?

:inquisitive:

i dont but by law the childrens legal guardians (the parents) have the right to make the choice until the child is of legal age to understand the choice - ergo the Parents have the last word


Children are bound by their parent's beliefs. It's the natural order of things.

I'm not sure I see the alternative. We can't have the state or the neighbours setting the standards for how we raise our children, we set the standards ourselves.

Intervention by the state in family religious matters is a very touchy area.

:bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Children are bound by their parent's beliefs. It's the natural order of things.

I'm not sure I see the alternative. We can't have the state or the neighbours setting the standards for how we raise our children, we set the standards ourselves.

Intervention by the state in family religious matters is a very touchy area.

Maybe they are in terms of which school they go to or if they get thrashed by nuns.

But when it comes to a choice between life and death? What if the parents have perverted standards? There's a recent series of child abuse cases in the UK where children accused of being possessed by the devil have been beaten and starved to death by religious communities. OK by you? :inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

i dont but by law the childrens legal guardians (the parents) have the right to make the choice until the child is of legal age to understand the choice - ergo the Parents have the last word

Even if the choice the parents make means the child will never grow up to be of legal age? (Such as the denial of medical intervention in this case).

Do you think children are property then, with no rights of their own?

[Beirut]

But when it comes to a choice between life and death? What if the parents have perverted standards? There's a recent series of child abuse cases in the UK where children accused of being possessed by the devil have been beaten and starved to death by religious communities. OK by you? :inquisitive:

No. No. No. Not perverted standards. We're talking about "normal" people.

Then again, normal is ambiguous at best.

A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Hindu would have radical differences in how they raise their children. Some of these differences would be outrageous to the other religions, but that does not mean the children can be taken away. But if they can be taken away, who says so, who takes them, and then which religion are they brought up in before another person takes them away because that religion is also wrong?

Parents have rights over their children. Like I said, it's the natural order of things.

[Sir Moody]

no i dont - but i dont think the state has the right to step in and take over

untimatly it is the Parents choice while we may disagree with their religeous doctrine we should not deny them their beliefs

[BDC]

How is denying your desperately ill children routine medical care not perverted?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

i dont but by law the childrens legal guardians (the parents) have the right to make the choice until the child is of legal age to understand the choice - ergo the Parents have the last word

Well this is the whole point-legally you don't have the right to deny medical care when it is not conceivably in your child's best interests. In the UK they won't even bother to wait for the courts if something like this happens, they'll give the transfusion and then get permission afterwards. It's that well established.

This is child abuse, in the same way not feeding your children is. I am truly disturbed that some posters appear to think we should respect people's religious beliefs in this case. Why is that a more valid reason for letting your child die than, say, being a bit bored of them?

[Beirut]

How is denying your desperately ill children routine medical care not perverted?

It is not routine according to Jehova's Witnesses. It's a violation of God's law.

As I've mentioned before, I have many friends and co-workers who are Witnesses. I know a great deal about their way of life. I sure as shoot don't agree with a lot of what they do, but you would be underestimating them if you looked at them as mindless cult-heads. (That's a generalized statement, not one aimed at you.)

[Petrus]

i dont but by law the childrens legal guardians (the parents) have the right to make the choice until the child is of legal age to understand the choice - ergo the Parents have the last word



:bow:

The law grants basic rights to everyone.

Those rights cannot be denied or altered by anyone in any circumstance.

In this case, the right of parents to rule their children do not allow them to let their children die because of what they think being right or wrong.

They do not have a right of life and death upon their children and they cannot refuse them life saving medical help whatever their religious beliefs, this is a crime just like not acting to save the children’s life and letting them die is a crime.

This is not state against religious freedom this is personal belief against law.

Everyone is free to think that jews, blacks, englishmen, whatever are impure and shall not be allowed to live but if one starts pogroms then one leaves the domain of personal belief to break the law his actions shall be prevented by legal forces.

[Ja'chyra]

Until the children are old enough to state that they are and want to be part of that religion, 16?, than that religions belief should not be forced on them.

[BDC]

It is not routine according to Jehova's Witnesses. It's a violation of God's law.

As I've mentioned before, I have many friends and co-workers who are Witnesses. I know a great deal about their way of life. I sure as shoot don't agree with a lot of what they do, but you would be underestimating them if you looked at them as mindless cult-heads. (That's a generalized statement, not one aimed at you.)
I have looked up what they believe. Excluding the weird blood transfusions bit, it all seemed fairly reasonable.

But that doesn't change the fact it's abuse.

If, say, a new cult emerged which banned, say, painkillers, do you think there would be any question over whether ill children of cult members get painkillers or not? Being a long established religion doesn't prevent your views being abusive.

[Beirut]

Until the children are old enough to state that they are and want to be part of that religion, 16?, than that religions belief should not be forced on them.

What's the alternative? Babysitters while mommy and daddy go to church? Most kids figure it out as they go along. They learn from what they see and from comparing it to other things they see, then they form their own opinions.


Being a long established religion doesn't prevent your views being abusive.

One man's abuse is another man's salvation. The one guaranteed aspect of religion is that they all think the other guy is dead wrong.

[BDC]

What's the alternative? Babysitters while mommy and daddy go to church?

Ideally. Sat through an Anglican service on Sunday a lot of it was offensive, crude, and totally unacceptable for the 21st century. And this was a kids' service, in a whishywashy Curch of England church. It really worried me. Teaching people that god's message is that it's ok to sell people into slavery and everyone who doesn't believe is an evil satanist? It really worried me that these people didn't even realise what they were saying. If you slightly rephrased it and said it on the street you'd be arrested.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It is not routine according to Jehova's Witnesses. It's a violation of God's law.

As I've mentioned before, I have many friends and co-workers who are Witnesses. I know a great deal about their way of life. I sure as shoot don't agree with a lot of what they do, but you would be underestimating them if you looked at them as mindless cult-heads. (That's a generalized statement, not one aimed at you.)

As I have stated elsewhere, I have no issue with Witnesses, having always found them to be interesting proponents of their faith. This particular issue however, is at the root of how religious beliefs can affect the lives of children - who by definition have not the mental capacity to choose their own value systems.

You are quite right to say that naturally, the parents' ethic system is likely to be the one a child is brought up in. There's no problem with that - especially as a state "parent" is unlikely to bring the same positive environment to the child.

The issue comes when the belief system of the parent contravenes the rights of the child, or is likely to lead to grave damage to the child physically or psychologically.

Let me advance another example, not quite as life-threatening as the blood transfusion scenario, and from personal experience and a more "mainstream" religious group.

In my distant youth, I was sent to a very well thought of private boarding school in Ireland, run by Roman Catholic monks of whom my staunchly Catholic father approved. I was a remarkably well-behaved child, yet one day I found myself hauled in front of the class for punishment. My crime had been looking around during Mass, interested in the choir and other goings on behind me instead of dutifully praying. The headmaster of the school, keen to finally have a chance to demonstrate his Dominican view that the children of the nobility should be treated with the same vehemence as any others, duly had me stripped in front of my classmates and thrashed with a belt. Nearly forty years later, I still have three broad scars across my back.

Given my father's position, the monk had consulted with him beforehand (so I learned some time later) and had been given full parental permission for such a display. In 1960s Ireland, such beatings were rather common.

Nowadays of course, such an act would lead to criminal prosecutions all round.

So my question is: has my country and society progressed positively through the introduction of laws that deprive parents and their Church of the right to scar children for life, or should my father's Victorian views on morality, expressed through the leather belt of a priest in response to a clearly grave crime, be respected and allowed?

To ensure the example does not set off a ream of anti-Catholic rhetoric, I should note that some while after, my mother had me taken from this place and set amongst a more progressive school run by American nuns - the Mother Superior of whom had a saying: "If you see a man without a smile, give him yours" which they lived by. I have rarely been among more loving and more ethically inspiring people.

[Beirut]

So my question is: has my country and society progressed positively through the introduction of laws that deprive parents and their Church of the right to scar children for life, or should my father's Victorian views on morality, expressed through the leather belt of a priest in response to a clearly grave crime, be respected and allowed?


I think we went to the same kind of school. Doubtlessly, yours was worse than mine. My father had to sign a contract with the school that allowed corporal punishment. In this case delivered via a large wooden paddle with holes drilled through it to avoid any loss of speed during the swing. Some of the rugby players in school were big boys and had to be held in place by several teachers.

In answer to your question, no. Parents, and especially the church, do not have the right to physically scar a child.

Mind you, I do support a parent's right to spank their kid or give them a whack across the head (you know what I mean) when they're being an idiot. I got it and it smartened me up more than once.

Now, in the case of the JW children who got blood transfusions, I think the right thing was done. But I admit that a small part of my reasoning is based on the JW belief that what happens beyond your control is not your fault. If a JW is unconscious, and cannot protest his medical treatment, then he does not have to answer for it to God. The blood transfusion does not violate his faith.

I don't agree with their faith, but I do respect it.

Most of my JW co-workers carry signed cards in their wallets saying "do not give blood no matter what". They would rather die than receive a transfusion. If I was in a position to intervene if they were going to get pumped anyway, I'm not sure what I would do. On one hand, they are out cold and the transfusion cannot be held against them, on the other hand these are good men who feel they have a higher obligation to God. Who am I to question their faith?

I really don't know what I would do.

[Goofball]

No that would be fries supereme. As, in typical male fashion, it's total overkill. French fries+chesse-like-substance+sour cream+beef bits+tomatoes+chives=overkill.

Sweet Jesus...

Never had that before, but I'm gonna get me some today!

[lars573]

It's the standard side with Taco Bell meals.

[Slyspy]

Beruit, would it be ok for the parents of these children to put a gun to their heads and shoot them dead?

Edit:

Frankly I do regard Witnesses as a cult. Sorry.

[Papewaio]

[
Basically the state has said in no unclear terms that this multinational religious group is wrong and not considered capable to decide on their children’s future


Numbers of people and numbers of locations that they inhabit does not make their stance any more or less correct.

If they want to live in the country they have to obey the laws of that country. If they want the laws changed then they should go through due democratic process.

Their belief system is not automatically right just because it is called a religion, nor should having a religion place you above or below the law. All should be treated equally.

[Spetulhu]

Their belief system is not automatically right just because it is called a religion, nor should having a religion place you above or below the law. All should be treated equally.

Equal? The Witnesses already get special consideration for their religious angle. Someone refusing his child a transfusion for any other reason would surely risk charges of negligence, child endangerment, perhaps even attempted murder. But the JW are not only free but actually demanding an apology from the government! :furious3:

[Watchman]

Reading the pro-JW arguments in this thread kinda reminded me of what I've been told of the etymological root of the word "family". Comes apparently from the Latin word famulus, which signified all the members of a household - wife, children, domestic slaves - under the authority of the (male) head...

Well, these days we got laws and all that say parents can be stripped of the custody of their children in the case they do not live up to certain specified minimum standards. In this case the parents' failure in the matter is quite manifest (two infants dead and three hospitalized, remember?), which duly brings about the standard response in functioning justice systems - the appropriate authorities strap on their jackboots and codpieces and intervene.

Which is what they're for to a large degree. Keeping citizens from doing stupid and harmful things to each other.

[Beirut]

Beruit, would it be ok for the parents of these children to put a gun to their heads and shoot them dead?

Depends. What caliber? :inquisitive:


Frankly I do regard Witnesses as a cult. Sorry.

That's entirely your right.

Many view the JW interpretation of God's ban on blood transfusions as... odd, but some other religions say God does not allow you to eat a hamburger. Others say the hamburger is ok, but not a cheeseburger. And bacon on the hamburger or cheeseburger is definitely out of the question.

All organized groups of people interpreting God's laws are, shall we say, eccentric to some degree.

[BDC]

Many view the JW interpretation of God's ban on blood transfusions as... odd, but some other religions say God does not allow you to eat a hamburger. Others say the hamburger is ok, but not a cheeseburger. And bacon on the hamburger or cheeseburger is definitely out of the question.

All organized groups of people interpreting God's laws are, shall we say, eccentric to some degree.

Undoubtably, but these laws don't result in children dying pointlessly. They're all pretty flexible in extremes. Maybe if JW only allowed blood transfusions when strictly needed it'd be a better analogy.

[Beirut]

Undoubtably, but these laws don't result in children dying pointlessly. They're all pretty flexible in extremes. Maybe if JW only allowed blood transfusions when strictly needed it'd be a better analogy.

I understand your point. I wasn't comparing the gravity of the situations, only the oddities involved in any interpretation of God's laws for man.

One of the JW's problems with blood transfusions, aside from their religious beliefs, is that they are inherently unsafe. AIDS, hepatitis, et al. They believe bloodless surgery and other bloodless medical procedures are either available or could be made available. They see all this as a fight against an inefficient medical profession that refuses to accept/explore inevitable and obvious advances in medicine.

I'm not saying the JWs should pursue their religious beliefs right through the bodies of their children. I don't agree with them, but I do understand them.

Look at any religious group in detail. They all have interpretations of God's laws that are outrageous, asinine, when viewed by other religious groups. The list is too long, as well as insulting, to write out here. So I don't see the JWs refusal to take blood as anything out of the ordinary. It's well in keeping with the standards of religious conventional wisdom. (How's that for an expression!)

The JWs are not the only people who put their children at risk "on God's behalf".

One aspect of all this is worth note; though they are willing to sacrifice themselves and their children in the name of God, they are not willing to kill others or other people's children in the name of God. That means something.

To avoid the upcoming misunderstanding, I'll say clearly, no, they should not let their children die for their religious beliefs. I'm also saying they are no worse and no better than any other religious group.

[KukriKhan]

This document (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:37pBFVyGTscJ:www.stjames.ie/PatientsVisitors/Departments/BloodTransfusion/BloodTransfusionGuidelines/JehovahsWitness/ManagementofBloodTransfusionissuesforJehovahsWitnessPatients/file,19056,en.pdf+bloodtransfusion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=40&gl=us) is an Irish Hospital's policy in JW blood transfusions. Quite illuminating, and shows that the topic arises often enough to necessitate a policy paper. Page 3 of the document addresses JW children:


Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses below the age of 16 years° The wellbeing of the child is overriding

I wonder if most hospitals/emergency clinics have similar SOP's.

[R'as al Ghul]

Most of my JW co-workers carry signed cards in their wallets saying "do not give blood no matter what". They would rather die than receive a transfusion. If I was in a position to intervene if they were going to get pumped anyway, I'm not sure what I would do. On one hand, they are out cold and the transfusion cannot be held against them, on the other hand these are good men who feel they have a higher obligation to God. Who am I to question their faith?

I really don't know what I would do.

Wouldn't that actually be easy to decide? You can only act according to your own faith and ethics. I suspect that your belief would tell you that this co-worker needs help or else he dies. In this special situation, assuming that you act according to your faith and help him, how could the JW question your faith and actions afterwards even if it's against his own? He would've to acknowledge that you're a faithful man yourself and have acted accordingly.
If he expects you to respect his faith, so should he respect yours. I for one wouldn't stand by and watch someone die only because I knew that he has different ideas about the matter.

I've been in a comparable situation. The late mother of my girlfriend/fiancee was taken care of by me and my gf. The mother always said that when the time comes she wouldn't want us to call for a doctor. She was afraid of being towed to the hospital, connected to machinery to keep her alive and all that unnessecary stuff that's being done to prolong lives that are actually over. Do you have any idea how you feel when you actually have to make that decision? On the one hand we deeply respected her wish but on the other hand there was this deep feeling of responsibility and the wish that she wouldn't have to die just then. We didn't want it to happen, simple as that. Eventually when the situation got critical we called her doctor, the one she's always trusted and the one we did trust but we didn't call an ambulance. He convinced her that it would be best to make a proper examination at the hospital and she agreed because she was scared. I could see it in her eyes. The next day however she gathered all her strength and refused any care. When we came to the hospital, alarmed by nurses via phone, she sat there in her wheelchair ready to go. She was also pretty angry with us for letting it happen. It took a while to establish the trust we had before. When she died in the end, it happened in her sleep and she didn't have any pain. It also happened that we weren't there but my gf's brother and he only noticed that she'd fallen asleep. So, in the end she had her will but my gf still feels guilty for having disrespected her wish in the first place.

Am I making any sense? Can you somehow relate to that?
My point is that although I may know the wish of the person in question I may well decide against it because I have to answer to my own conscience. Trying to discuss different points of view in such a crisis seems out of the question. You just act.

Apart from all that, I agree that the opinions and beliefs of others should be respected, as hard as it may be to understand them at times.

R'as

[Duke of Gloucester]

Wouldn't that actually be easy to decide? You can only act according to your own faith and ethics. I suspect that your belief would tell you that this co-worker needs help or else he dies. In this special situation, assuming that you act according to your faith and help him, how could the JW question your faith and actions afterwards even if it's against his own? He would've to acknowledge that you're a faithful man yourself and have acted accordingly.
If he expects you to respect his faith, so should he respect yours. I for one wouldn't stand by and watch someone die only because I knew that he has different ideas about the matter

Respecting his faith would involve acting according to his beliefs when it concerns his welfare rather than acting in the way you want.

Whilst I am sure that the decision to treat these babies is correct, I am very uncomfortable about giving the state rights to interfere in how children are brought up. It should only happen in extreme circumstances, which these are. 999 times out of 1000 parents know their children best and care most about their welfare, so they should be the ones to make important decisions on their behalf. Of course as the child grows and matures, he or she should also voice an opinion and this opinion should carry increasing weight.

As for characterising all JW as child abusers:thumbsdown: If the state can remove their children, then yours can be taken too. Do you find fetal stem cells, organs bought from people in the third world, cells from aborted fetuses or breeding clones for organs morally objectionable? Now society may agree with you, but values change and you might find yourself out of step with society and your children treated in a way you abhor. If it is ok for JW, then it is ok for you.