Child's health or religion?

Canada
January 31, 2007 10:45pm CST
In BC, the government returned 3 of the sextuplets born recently here.The 3 were taken away on the weekend as they needed blood transfusions to have a chance to survive(they were all small and these 3 were the weakest).The parents do not want their children to receive any blood transfusions as they(the parents) are Jehovas Witness and their religion is against this method of treatment. The kids are a few weeks old.Should they be denide treatment that may save their lives because of their parent's religious beliefs?The children have not had a chance to accept a religion.Would it have been better for the govt to allow the deaths of the kids?Do the kids have any rights? I look forward to all answers whether positive or negative as this is really a case of religion against government with the lives of innocent children on the line.
7 people like this
22 responses
• United States
1 Feb 07
I feel very strongly about this subject. I believe God created some people with a gift and who are put on this earth to become discoverers of new medical treatments to save and prolong life. So these parents are in their way denying Gods gift to mankind.
2 people like this
• United States
1 Feb 07
I agree with you 100% The doctors are doing what God put them here for...
• Philippines
1 Feb 07
God gives us wisdom and free will. We have the freedom to choose. God gives us wisdom to discover what we need; God did not give everything at once. God gives us wisdom to know and that is science. God commands "Thou shall not kill." I am a Christian and with the foregoing knowledge, I believe that blood transfusion is not against God or the Christian religion or the Holy Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own doctrines or teachings which they follow which is different and distinct from the Holy Bible. They can do whatever they want.
2 people like this
• Australia
2 Feb 07
There are no winners in a situation like this. Most religions believe that children are covered by their parents faith, so being baptised is not really relevant. However, a parent has the inherent right to decide on medical treatment for their children. Whilst I personally do not believe in denying them these blood transfusions, I do not judge, because it is only the the Grace of God that it is not me having to make this horrid decision.
@XxAngelxX (2832)
• Canada
1 Feb 07
Although I will agree boeyong made some very valid points, I still cannot see if there was a chance of my child surviving by being given a transfusion how I could possibly refuse it. I want the best for my children. I'd let them do it. I think the government definitely had the right to step in and take these children.
2 people like this
• Canada
2 Feb 07
I am not going to question the beliefs of a relogion.Like yourself,I would do anything I could to save my children.To turn my back on my babies FOR ANY REASON seems to be a case of neglect minimum on my part.
@ukchriss (2103)
1 Feb 07
Yes I think the governments should step in to deal with it, and protect the child up untill they are at an age where they can choose their own religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses urges its members to refuse to accept blood transfusions and to not allow them to be given to their children. This is based upon four passages in the Bible which they interpret as prohibiting the consuming of blood: Genesis 9:4 "But flesh (meat) with...blood...ye shall not eat" Leviticus 17:12-14 "...No soul of you shall eat blood...whosoever eateth it shall be cut off" Acts 15:29 "That ye abstain...from blood..." Acts 21:25 "...Gentiles...keep themselves from things offered to idols and from blood..." The faith group once interpreted "eating" of blood in its most general form to include accepting "transfusion of whole blood, packed [red blood cells] RBCs, and plasma, as well as [white blood cells] WBC and platelet administration. Why should this be forced upon children? All children should have the right to live a healthy life!
• Canada
2 Feb 07
While I do believe an adult does have the right to follow whatever religion they may believe in AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INJURE/HURT ANYONE ELSE,a child does not have the information or maturity to make that decision.And as for babies??? At the very least,would this not be neglect??
@Island_Geko (3760)
• Canada
1 Feb 07
Because the children have not been baptized into a religion I feel the government did the right thing in saving these childrens live by giving them the blood transfusion. I find to many religions are neglecting the welfare of children and it is a form of child abuse and governments should step in to deal with it to protect the child.
2 people like this
• United States
3 Feb 07
If the parents cannot make the correct decision in regards to their children's health and well being it is only right that someone step-in and do what is right for the children. Children are at the mercy of their parent's beliefs. Thank you for alerting me to your article. It is topic worthy of discussion.
1 person likes this
• India
3 Feb 07
well, because childrens are innocent
• India
3 Feb 07
YOU REALLY HAVE A GOOD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HISTORY,GOOD LUCK
• Canada
4 Feb 07
Thank you for the compliment but in this case,much of the info came from the newspapers and the internet. But I will still accept the compliment!! Welcome to MyLot,by the way.
@nw1911guy (1134)
• United States
2 Feb 07
Odd, these are the same people that would probably argue against abortion of any kind. It doesn't make any sense to me. You are either pro life or you're not, and I fail to see how this should be ok. I would say the kids have rights until such time as they are old enough to consent to church policies.
1 person likes this
• Canada
3 Feb 07
I had thought of the abortion angle but figured I best keep the topic based on the kids.I agree with what you say as well as with your comments regarding the kids rights.
@talisman (1308)
• United States
2 Feb 07
I think they did the right thing in giving the children the blood transfusions. It's not a child's fault that their parents don't believe in receiving blood transfusions. That's their parent's beliefs, not their own and it's not fair that they should be punished for it. A child deserves to live.
• Canada
2 Feb 07
Well said and to the point.I hope the parents will come to the same conclusion.
@nehakalley4 (1919)
• United States
1 Feb 07
The religious beliefs are made according to the human beings convenience and hence the parents should not think about these religious beleifs and if the doctors have adviced them for the treatment then they should go for them. Don't they want their children to live alive.
• Canada
2 Feb 07
Just for the record,the doctors DID explain to the parents what would happen if the babies were not given the transfusions nut the parents decided to ignore the warnings from them based on their personal beliefs and not based on the needs of the babies.
1 Feb 07
I think the parents should be able to decide. I would hate for a doctor to do something to my kids that I dont' agree with.
1 person likes this
• Canada
2 Feb 07
So if I understand you,it would be ok to you if a child was allowed to die although there were ways to save it?Does that also mean you would not be taking your children to see a doctor?
• China
1 Feb 07
I support child's health... sometimes, we can't do things just as what we wish, and we need to do some give-ups in order to solve a much more serious problem... If I were parent of the children, I would like to choose to give up religion temporarily and save my children's life.
1 person likes this
• Canada
2 Feb 07
If a religion asks me to give up my child's life,I could/would not do it.The interpretation of the Bible is very open.I do not see why my child should suffer because of a possible missunderstanding.
@Ravenladyj (22937)
• United States
1 Feb 07
As much as I'm all for one practicing their religion etc etc...in cases like this where the one in need doesnt have a voice yet, someone needs to speak up for them...and as you mentioned, they havent accepted any religion yet so I think the law/gov etc does need to step in and give these babies a fighting chance.....
1 person likes this
• Canada
2 Feb 07
I think you have made a valid point in that the children involved do not get a chance to decide for themselves what the course of action would be. Most people who have replied to this discussion believe the govt did right in stepping in to save the babies.I agree with the decision.
@crystal8577 (1470)
• United States
1 Feb 07
I would never deny my children treatment due to religion. I don't think I could accept a religion that would ask me to do that. These are little lives we are talking about. They are to small to have a voice in anything. They have to rely on their parents to protect them. I am not going to go into my feelings on the matter any further though. I hope these poor babies will be o-kay.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Feb 07
If the parents cannot make the correct decision in regards to their children's health and well being it is only right that someone step-in and do what is right for the children. Children are at the mercy of their parent's beliefs.
@rosie_123 (6118)
1 Feb 07
I remember when I was a little girl (about 40 years ago!), some Jehovah's Witnesses came knocking on our door, and I wll always remember my Dad telling them to leave, because if his children needed a blood transfusion to save their lives, he would do it every time, so he could never dream of accepting their religion. And I agree. Those children have a right to life, - they have not made their choice about which religion they are going to follow, and yet their parents are denying them the chance to live, and to make up their own minds when they are older. The Government did the right thing as far as I'm concerned.
• Canada
2 Feb 07
One of the reasons for the creation of a Ministry of Clidren and family was to give the people who could not speak for themselves a voice.The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government should NOT interfere with parental decisions without first giving parents a fair hearing(1995). The parents based their decision not on facts,but on religious beliefs only.As I read it,the ministry has done evrything correct so far.
@maidei (76)
1 Feb 07
Faith is about belief .....Jehovah's witnesses believe in God and they know He will make a way for the children to survive....If it is His will they will survive without transfusion....And in this day and age where alternatives to blood transfusion exist it is wrong to go against people's choices and beliefs....late them decide what is wrong and what is right for their children who cannot decide for themselves...after all it is the parents who will live with whatever choices they will have made..
@bonbon664 (3470)
• Canada
1 Feb 07
According to the doctors, there was no alternative to the blood transfusion.
• Canada
2 Feb 07
Therefore,am I to presume the children have no rights in this matter??That is weird.We read how there are groups out there trying to get rights for the fetus but the born have no rights other than what the parent(right or wrong) decide thus allowing their child to die while other options were left alone??
@hob684 (53)
• United States
2 Feb 07
I've never heard that about Jehovah's Witnesses, but their religion does have some strange points. However, a child's guardian has the right to deny any medical procedure, I think. It's a weird situation however and I would definitly be against what the parents are trying to do.
• Canada
2 Feb 07
I believe what it comes down to is the life and safety of the children involved and they deserve the best caes available to them.
• Indonesia
2 Feb 07
in BC the goverment return 3 I have born recently here. Child health or religion for formality.. and religion liver of corect child in garuda
• Canada
2 Feb 07
Welcome to MyLot and while I do not understand everything you said,I believe you are saying that 3 of the children have been returned? That is the update,but my interpretation of what you said may not be what you wanted to say.Good thing it was not against your religion,I guess(haha) Again,welcome to MyLot and I hope you enjoy your stay.
• Hong Kong
2 Feb 07
So the parents are like,killing their children for the sake of a random religion? No.They children doesn't have faith in that religion,ONLY the parents. These parents,if the children are not allowed to take the treatment tell them to eat their kids.Yea.Feed their kids to their god.Scarfice it.
• Canada
2 Feb 07
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... and what about child endangerment or abandonement??