Blood transfusions forced on JW infants

http://lpaula.wordpress.com/2007/02/...-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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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/_t...o/topbul1d.gifGenesis 9:4 "But flesh (meat) with...blood...ye shall not eat"http://www.religioustolerance.org/_t...o/topbul1d.gifLeviticus 17:12-14 "...No soul of you shall eat blood...whosoever eateth it shall be cut off"http://www.religioustolerance.org/_t...o/topbul1d.gifActs 15:29 "That ye abstain...from blood..."http://www.religioustolerance.org/_t...o/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Darwin Award?

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:

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.

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

Quote:

---

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 .~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

It's child abuse.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

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

---

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

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.