The Vancouver parents of sextuplets born in January are now in a legal battle with the province, claiming the government violated their religious rights when social workers seized three of their newborns to give them blood transfusions.
The parents, both Jehovah's Witnesses, argue the province had no right to step in against their wishes to take temporary custody of three of their four surviving sextuplets.
B.C.'s director of child protection seized one child on a Jan. 26 order under provincial child-care legislation. An order for a second child was sought the following day and a third on Monday.
Two blood transfusions were done, and the babies were returned to the custody of their parents on Wednesday. The couple says their constitutional rights were disregarded because, as Jehovah's Witnesses, they oppose any treatment involving blood transfusions.
In a motion filed to block future seizures of the babies, the parents, who can't be named under a publication ban, issued their first public statement:
My wife] and I deeply love our babies and want them to live. We continue to be heartbroken about the death of [two of them]," the husband wrote in an affidavit. "We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions. We firmly believe that our creator commands us in scriptures, such as Acts 15:28-29 to abstain from blood products."
Court documents show the parents had a strained relationship with the doctors assisting the birthing process and that the father repeatedly rejected suggestions from medical experts that aborting two of the fetuses could give the remaining four a better chance of living.
Two newborns already dead
Two of the sextuplets — Canada's first ever — died soon after being born at the B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre on Jan. 5 and 6. All of the babies were 15 weeks premature and weighed less than 2.2 pounds each.
B.C. Minister of Children and family Services Tom Christensen made it clear that regardless of a family's religious affiliation, "the obligation is to ensure that a child in need of protection … gets the treatment required," even if that means the ministry must step in.
But Shane Brady, the lawyer representing the family, said the government must first give the parents a fair hearing, which the parents never received.
"They are very frustrated and deeply hurt by this unwarranted interference in this very difficult and challenging part of their children's treatment," Brady said of the parents.
The parents will be back in court in late February, when they will demand a government apology for violating their religious freedoms, and then try to persuade the court to end the possibility of future seizures.
The parents, both Jehovah's Witnesses, argue the province had no right to step in against their wishes to take temporary custody of three of their four surviving sextuplets.
B.C.'s director of child protection seized one child on a Jan. 26 order under provincial child-care legislation. An order for a second child was sought the following day and a third on Monday.
Two blood transfusions were done, and the babies were returned to the custody of their parents on Wednesday. The couple says their constitutional rights were disregarded because, as Jehovah's Witnesses, they oppose any treatment involving blood transfusions.
In a motion filed to block future seizures of the babies, the parents, who can't be named under a publication ban, issued their first public statement:
My wife] and I deeply love our babies and want them to live. We continue to be heartbroken about the death of [two of them]," the husband wrote in an affidavit. "We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions. We firmly believe that our creator commands us in scriptures, such as Acts 15:28-29 to abstain from blood products."
Court documents show the parents had a strained relationship with the doctors assisting the birthing process and that the father repeatedly rejected suggestions from medical experts that aborting two of the fetuses could give the remaining four a better chance of living.
Two newborns already dead
Two of the sextuplets — Canada's first ever — died soon after being born at the B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre on Jan. 5 and 6. All of the babies were 15 weeks premature and weighed less than 2.2 pounds each.
B.C. Minister of Children and family Services Tom Christensen made it clear that regardless of a family's religious affiliation, "the obligation is to ensure that a child in need of protection … gets the treatment required," even if that means the ministry must step in.
But Shane Brady, the lawyer representing the family, said the government must first give the parents a fair hearing, which the parents never received.
"They are very frustrated and deeply hurt by this unwarranted interference in this very difficult and challenging part of their children's treatment," Brady said of the parents.
The parents will be back in court in late February, when they will demand a government apology for violating their religious freedoms, and then try to persuade the court to end the possibility of future seizures.
MY OPINION:
Alright so here it comes, but first a warning: this is only my opinion and others are entitled to theirs! Please feel free to post comments.
While I believe the parents have a constitutional right to refuse blood transfusions for themselves I do NOT believe they have any constitutional rights to impose their beliefs on their children. In fact I think as a society we have an obligation to see that these children are not forced into their parents belief systems and die because of them. Therefore I 100% support the decision to remove these children from the parents care and give them what they need to survive. It is my understanding from talks with a JW friend of mine that JW's commit to their religion when they are old enough to do it for themselves (unlike say Catholics who baptize babies) and so these newborns would not really be JW's yet even by their own standards. So by this logic their argument has no merit. I am also outraged that they are saying they deserved a "fair hearing". I can only assume that this fair hearing would be a time consuming event that in itself could put the babies in danger by delaying treatment/care.
All that being said I have to admit that I personally don't really respect the JW religion. I do not claim to know 100% of what they believe but what I know is bloody ridiculous (pardon the pun). Before I go into that I'd like to share with you a little story:
A community is suddenly overwhelmed by a flash flood. The water is rising very, very quickly so a man and his family escape to their roof for safety. As they are waiting there his young son looks up to the father and says "Daddy what's going to happen to us?" The father replies with confidence "Don't worry God will save us." So they all sit their praying for help. One of their neighbors approaches their roof in his boat and yells through the rain "Hop in I'll take you to dry land". The father says "No thanks. God will save us." The neighbor tries to convince him but eventually motors off shaking his head, off to save others.
The family stay shivering on the roof and keep praying to God to save them. One by one the other people on the rooves are picked up by the neighbor's boat and others. Pretty soon the family is all alone on the roof. The water is rising very quickly.
Then a helicopter flys towards them, hovering above they drop their ladder and using the bull horn shout "Use the ladder. We'll get you outta hear." But the father refuses saying "No. We don't need it. God will save us." The rescue crew try to persuade them but it's of no use and they leave.
A little while later the water rises so high that the whole family drowns. They find themselves at the Pearly Gates. The father is angry that God let his family down: they were good people. The father marches over to the Saint guarding the gates and demands to speak to God. The saint says "I'm sorry he's very busy. What can I help you with?"
The father, angry, starts to yell at the saint "We did good deeds. Went to church. Tried to live our lives without sin. Then God just left us there to drown on our own roof!"
The saint looks at the father in disbelief, "He sent you boats. He sent you a helicopter. What more did you need?"
The morale: God gives us miracles every day. He helps us learn, find, create/invent things that make our lives easier and help us live longer. Miracles aren't always apparitions, jesus shaped potatoes and lights shining down from heaven. Don't wait for this type of "miracle" to save you.
Now the reason I bring this story up is because my JW friend told me about the blood transfusions than she showed me an article about a girl who was dying and the doctor's said she needed blood but her family stood fast and refused and she lived! It was a miracle. Pile of crap as far as I'm concerned. The girl (if she even exists) was proably one in a billion. God helped us discover how to give the right blood to the right people so we could save lives! Another arguement I have for JW's is that if God tells you to abstain from blood products than why do you eat meat? Does that not have blood in it? Don't get me wrong, I love meat, but like most religions they pick and choose how they want to use the scripture and how it's applicable.
Now let's hear everyone weigh in!
So, This story absolutely sickens me. First of all, I would just like to put these so called “Christians” in their place. (And, for those of you who do not know the definition of a Christian, it is someone who believes in Christ – and if JW’s say they are not Christian than they are saying they do not believe in Christ, then they should NOT be reading the bible, let alone quoting it.)
ReplyDeleteAlright, I looked up the scripture that they quoted, and here it is:
Acts 15: 28-29
“28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to aidols
, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
Okay, so I don’t know about you, but to me that doesn’t say “no blood transfusions or medical help to people (children/adults)”. It’s all interpretation yes, but when you put the entire verse together, to me it is saying, (background information – sacrifices used to be offered as a form of worship), that sacrifices should not be offered anymore, dead or alive. It’s a very confusing couple of versus, and I would have to study the whole chapter a bit more to offer more of an opinion. Just by looking at it tho, it’s more of a counsel not to kill, worship idols or fornicate, and then you “shall do well”.
Anyways, the issue is, the father referenced this scripture which is not clear one way or another. JW’s CHOSE to interpret this passage as they have. I guess the point I would like to stress is that, for example, the 10 commandments are in the scriptures. You cannot be confused with interpreting those: “Thou shalt not kill” “Thou shalt not commit adultery” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” and so on. If God did not want you to save people’s life (assuming the possibility was available), he would have advised us clearly. “If your child is dying and you can save him/her, please do not do it if blood is involved”. ßdoes that not seem absolutely retarded?
Okay, so, yes, I am very glad to hear that our government had the smarts to step in and save 3 lives. I also must say that I agree with Crystal that the JW religion is completely ridiculous. Well, she may not find it ridiculous, but I sure do. Everything I have learned about them, they have twisted basic doctrine or have silly traditions that make no sense (i.e. why not celebrate christmas? It’s the BIRTH OF GOD for crying out loud!)
Anyways, this isn’t supposed to be a JW bash on my part, but it’s kind of turned that way. In the end, it’s about 3 babies, and they now will live. I can not imagine being those kids when I’m grown and wondering why my parents wouldn’t have wanted to save my life. That’s so sad. I do not have respect for a religion that condones killing children. And yes, it’s murder in my mind to allow children to die when you have the option to save them. “Thou shalt not kill” – guess they do not believe all principles provided in the bible.
So! That’s my opinion. Let me stress.. it’s MY opinion.
-Kyla
Okay, first I want to say that I thought about this quite a lot before deciding to post a comment.
ReplyDeleteCrystal, you bring up a good point when you say JWs' children are not committed to the religion until they are old enough to choose it for themselves. I also respect Kyla's opinions and she brings up some good points as well.
I do not share the JW's beliefs so I personally most likely would not have refused the blood tranfusions. However....
Question for you: The babies cannot make the life or death choice for themselves; so whose responsibility is that decision? What is the role of EVERY parent? TO MAKE CHOICES ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN UNTIL THE CHILDREN ARE OLD ENOUGH TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES. The parents of the sextuplets, I believe, had every right to deny blood transfusions for their babies if that's what they felt was the right decision!
The parents are the primary caregivers, decision-makers and guardians. Based on their views and beliefs, they were doing what they felt was best for their children. It is one thing to deliberately do something you KNOW will harm or disadvantage your child, but it is an entirely different thing when you believe you are doing the right thing for them.
A medical doctor's opinion may be a professional opinion but it is nevertheless still an opinion. Doctors are wrong all the time. In the parents' place, would you have aborted 2 of the babies to give the other 4 a "better" chance, as was suggested before the sextuplets were born? Because I don't know if I could! Multiple births are always risky; there is always a chance that one or more of the babies will not survive. If I had taken that doctor's suggestion, I would have spent the rest of my life wondering "What if those 2 had survived on their own...what if I took their lives for nothing?"
Again, I want to emphasize that I would probably not have made the choice to deny the blood transfusions either, but I FULLY respect the right of the parents to make the decision for their own children and I believe no one had the authority to override that.
I sure wouldn't want the government overriding MY decisions about my children!
- Diana