Goverment intervenes on behalf of sextuplets
Categories: Newborns, Pregnancy & Birth, Safety
A set of sextuplets born in British Columbia, has run into some trouble. The babies, born fifteen weeks premature and weighing less than two pounds each, were in need of medical assistance to survive. Two of them didn't get it and died. Three of the remaining babies were taken away from the parents by the government to ensure the infants get the treatment they need to survive. You see, the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses.Rather than take advantage of medical science to save their children, the parents refused blood transfusions, resulting in the two deaths. The government asked the courts for the right to take custody of the children to ensure that they received the treatment they needed. Two blood transfusions were administered and the babies were returned to the parents.
Speaking of the transfusions, the father said "[The mother] and I could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl." Hmmm... saving her life is "violating" her? I'm all in favor of people believing any silly thing they want, and even living their life according to those beliefs. What I won't condone and, thankfully, neither will the government of British Columbia is letting those beliefs endanger the life of another, especially a child who has no say in the matter.
Yes, parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, but there comes a point at which the government must step in for the protection of the children. No one would say that a parent has the right to sexually molest their child, nor to beat them black and blue. In both cases, people would be thankful that the government intervened. I see this as no different. You want to teach your kid to believe in
Recent Posts
- Heart-Shaped Valentine's Day Crafts (2/09/2010)
- Study Suggests Link Between Autism and Parents' Ages (2/09/2010)
- Just Chute Me! (Or: Do We REALLY Have to Play with Our Kids?) (2/09/2010)
- Atlanta Billboards Proclaim 'Black Children Are An Endangered Species' (2/09/2010)
- Canadian Hospital Offers Surgery for Obese Children (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Sandyone 2-01-2007 @ 3:29PM
"I'm all in favor of people believing any silly thing they want, and even living their life according to those beliefs. What I won't condone and, thankfully, neither will the government of British Columbia is letting those beliefs endanger the life of another, especially a child who has no say in the matter."
Aaaah...this reminds me of the belief that an embryo isn't human or because it lives inside of a woman that it shouldn't be protected. It's a silly belief, but many people hold it.
Too bad we can't extend protection to all of those who have no say in the matter.
Reply
CLM 2-01-2007 @ 4:39PM
I dont' get it - medical intervention in the form of fertility drugs to have kids is ok, but medical intervention in the form of blood transfusions to save the kids resulting from the fertility drugs is not? And the government gave the surviving kids back to these people!?!
A belief system is a fine thing, but is it too much to ask that it be at least a little consistent in the logic department?
Reply
Jennifer Fuchs 2-01-2007 @ 3:43PM
I couldn't agree more. What upsets me about this case is the willingness of the couple to embark on in-vitro fertilization, which in and of itself I have no problem with. They had knowledge of the possibility of multiple births, high risk, premature, low birth-weight, etc., but yet, because of their beliefs they are unwilling to take the medical steps necessary to ensure that their young babies live. I don't have problems with religious beliefs, however, when these beliefs wind up hurting, or ending the lives of others, then there is a problem.
The other thing that bothers me about this situation is that if the couple are unwilling to take medical steps necessary to ensure the babies survive, like a blood transfusion, then what a waste and a burden to the medical system to have a medical team fight for the survival of the babies only to have the parents say, "meh, don't believe in it." The Canadian medical system is over-burdened enough. Now they are burdening the court system with their fight. How does their religion address such selfishness, I wonder?
Reply
dadventure.ca 2-01-2007 @ 3:56PM
The father has stated that, on 2 occasions, they refused to abort 2 of the fetuses to give the other 4 a better chance. So, they are “pro-life” (to use a loaded term), but then they refuse a medical intervention that could save their children? How does that logic make sense? Good on the authorities for stepping in.
Reply
Anji 2-01-2007 @ 4:48PM
""I'm all in favor of people believing any silly thing they want, and even living their life according to those beliefs. What I won't condone and, thankfully, neither will the government of British Columbia is letting those beliefs endanger the life of another, especially a child who has no say in the matter."
Aaaah...this reminds me of the belief that an embryo isn't human or because it lives inside of a woman that it shouldn't be protected. It's a silly belief, but many people hold it.
Too bad we can't extend protection to all of those who have no say in the matter."
Too bad there can never be a discussion about baby deaths without the pro-lifers rearing their ugly heads and harping on about abortion passive-aggressively - even when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic in question.
Reply
Stephanie 2-01-2007 @ 4:12PM
According to the official www.Watchtower.org website, there are 3 Bible verses that forbid blood transfusions...
"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat" (Genesis 9:3-4)
"[You must] pour its blood out and cover it with dust" (Leviticus 17:13-14)
"Abstain from . . . fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:19-21).1
Is it just me or do these verses have nothing to do with medical blood transfusions? It seems to me they are more to do with not eating blood from animals. Anyone care to explain?
Reply
Amy 2-01-2007 @ 4:16PM
Roger, you're a real jerk. An "imaginary friend"? Way to infantalize the beliefs of billions of people - not just Christians, but everyone who believes in a higher power or powers. What makes you so freaking smart that you know better than 90% of humanity throughout recorded and pre-recorded history? Oh, well, you write for a BLOG! And you managed to knock up your wife a time or two. Mea culpa! Let me bow down before the font of knowledge that is Roger!!!
Reply
Monica 2-01-2007 @ 4:24PM
I'm going to preface this comment by pointing out that I don't believe that infertility is god's will - I'm just using the statement to illustrate the parents hypocracy.
It's okay to contravene god's will by having IVF to create children, but it's not okay to have a blood transfusion to save their lives?
Reply
Joe 2-02-2007 @ 10:02AM
Read the families official statement:
http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/070131-sextuplets-affidavit.html
Reply
Uly 2-01-2007 @ 7:37PM
Oh, Anji, didn't you know? EVERYTHING has to do with abortion.
Like, today, I ate an egg salad sandwich - and as I ate it, I was forced to contemplate the hideous fate of *other* creatures eaten - ah, that is, aborted - before their births. And yesterday, I did *not* eat an egg salad sandwich, but I did have beans, which are, of course, aborted plant babies. And so on.
It all comes round to abortion. If you're not a sinner, that is.
Reply
SKL 2-01-2007 @ 7:09PM
I'm not Canadian so I don't know about their religious protections. But from my perspective as a US citizen, I think the parents should have a right to decide not to permit blood transfusions. (I realize this right isn't always respected in the US either, but it should be.)
I am not a Jehova's Witness nor personally against blood transfusions when they are absolutely necessary to save a life. But civil liberties are not based on my personal beliefs.
Injecting somebody else's blood into a child's blood stream is about the most invasive thing you can do, and I don't see why most take it for granted that saving a life by injecting blood is unquestionably right. There are true (as well as fictional) stories of people who have drunk human blood in order to improve their health. There is a reason why we consider these horror stories. And we do not know what the Bible would say about blood transfusions, since they were not performed in that time and place.
If it is a family's deep religious belief that receiving another's blood into one's body is an abomonation before God, they should have the right to refuse it.
Having said that, I will also say that I don't believe in IVF where more than two embryos are implanted, since it greatly increases the chances that some of the babies will die. Creating a life to destroy it (or probably destroy it) is immoral in my opinion.
Reply
Nancy Toby 2-01-2007 @ 9:59PM
Good for the government in this case.
That's just plain sick. Not giving an infant that premature blood products is just the same as signing its death warrant or retroactively aborting it.
Reply
Heather 2-01-2007 @ 11:56PM
I don't get it either. The whole fertility treatment is ok but blood transfusions are not. Make up you minds. You can't ask for medical help to get pregnant then not do what it is needed to save the lives you created. That makes me so mad. I am glad the government did what was needed.
Reply
Uncle Roger 2-02-2007 @ 2:29AM
SKL wrote "If it is a family's deep religious belief that receiving another's blood into one's body is an abomonation before God, they should have the right to refuse it."
If the father wants to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, that's fine. If the mother wants to do the same, that's fine too. But until that baby is old enough to speak for itself, understanding fully the enormity and consequences of such a decision, then, when dealing with a matter of life and death, we have to assume the choice would be life.
Reply
Amy 2-02-2007 @ 9:06AM
Sorry, I should amend that - you're a real jerk AND you're arrogant.
You owe virtually the entire world a big, fat apology. Not that I expect that to ever happen, because you're a big, fat ass.
Reply
Brandi 2-02-2007 @ 9:42AM
I am all about people making their own decisions, be it sexuality, how to raise and discipline their children( within reason!) etc.. etc... you get the point! What i dont understand is how they can intervene with gods plan ( and i do beleive in him) for them to have children and have IVF (i think thats right), but yet say they wont interven to give them a blood transfusion? Were they not intervening to begin with? I know people have their reasons but as a parent i could not sit back and watch my children die i would want, expect, and demand the hospital do anything and everything to save one of my children. My first was born 13 weeks early and required several blood transfusion which he got and today he is healthy and happy and i don't think god loves him anyless for it!
Reply
Brandi 2-02-2007 @ 9:48AM
oh one more think just a theory so no one get upset, In the bible it said god created adam and eve in his likeness. Now, if he creates all life as it says in the bible then how come they are taking it out of gods hands and creating life themselves by using IVF ( and I'm all for it by the way just proving a point!)But they can't save a life because according to them thats in Gods hands. Didn't they try and play God by using IVF to begin with? Like i said just proving a point, basically these people are picking what beliefs to uphold! I personally believe IVF is good for those that need it and I do believe in God, i don't want anybody jumping all over me just kinda pointing out the obvious here! If you believe in the bible then you have to believe in all of it not what part suits you at the moment!
Reply
SKL 2-02-2007 @ 10:14AM
Roger,
If it were always true that the government intervenes to save a pre-term child's life, you would have a very strong point. However, in most cases, the government allows these children to die if the parents so choose, either through abortion or by allowing parents and doctors to refuse medical treatment or even basic nutrition in cases of extreme medical problems. The latter is true even of non-pre-term babies and even adults (think Ms. Schiavo), regardless of religious beliefs. Thus "we have to assume the choice would be life" is selectively applied in our society.
There was no guarantee here that if the children received a blood transfusion they would live long and productive lives. And furthermore, there are many cases where blood transfusions are administered although they are not strictly necessary to save life. Doctors often do it because it's easier than certain other things. But if the parents think it is polluting their child's body, that it creates a result worse than death, their views should be respected.
It's different if the parents committed some act that caused the children to be in this life-threatening situation. One could argue that they did through their IVF. However, one could also argue that the two issues are but remotely related at this point.
Reply
Bromac 2-02-2007 @ 12:57PM
"If the father wants to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, that's fine. If the mother wants to do the same, that's fine too. But until that baby is old enough to speak for itself, understanding fully the enormity and consequences of such a decision, then, when dealing with a matter of life and death, we have to assume the choice would be life."
100% Agreed here. Well Put Uncle Roger.
Oh, and Roger Sinasohn, I don't agree that you're a jerk or arrogant for poking at the religious. Just givin' ya props. Being that there is no physical proof of a god, I think "imaginary friend" would be brazenly accurate.
Reply
bluepaintred 2-02-2007 @ 1:22PM
why try so hard to get pregannt only to kill your child?
and as for the imaginary friend/god thing... LMAO
Reply