Goverment intervenes on behalf of sextuplets

After reading their whole statement, I believe even more firmly that the right decision was made.

Violating their little girl???

I guess I'm not understanding what kind of a "fair hearing" they are requesting... any argument that they make would only prolong the childrens' condidtion.

It isnt like this is a rare disease and they dont know if treatment would work.. it is something that has been treated successfully again and again.

The fair hearing is simple... someone has to speak for the child and assume that the child would want to live rather than die.

They can explain the violation via bible verse later.

Consoling each other in private??? So they made a decision that they didnt agree with the treatment so they made their daughter go through it ("be violated") without them with her-- so, alone.

Even if they disagreed... they abandoned their child while it happened in order for themselves to have a clear conscience re: following a bible verse.

This is a wonderful foundation for their future relationship!

UGH!

Reply

Amy - I'm pretty sure calling someone a "big, fat ass" is not a very Christian thing to do.

Reply

I'm definitely with Rog on this one. If Amy is any example of what religiosity does to a person's manners, I don't want any part of it. Getting back to the topic at hand, if this couple's behavior toward their newborn children is any example of religiosity, I don't want any part of it either. And yes, their fringe beliefs should NOT be respected if it almost certainly will result in the death by medical neglect of their infant child.

Reply

Aren't we all highly skilled at making ASSumptions?

I never said that *I* was religious or that I was a Christian. But a lot of people I care about are, and a lot of intelligent people I know are, and I get pretty honked off when arrogant, know-it-all creeps like Roger go off at the mouth and insult all of them in one fell swoop.

I even know some Jehovah's Witnesses who are damned nice people. And I have family members who are Muslims. They believe in an "imaginary friend," too.

It is insulting in the extreme to liken their most dearly held beliefs to having an "imaginary friend." It does not lend itself to any kind of an intelligent discussion to be dismissive of BILLIONS of people this way.

Oh, but *I* am the bad guy because I called Roger an ass. Whatever.

Reply

Now, just a second. The doctors implanted 6 embryos, expecting that several would die naturally and others would be 'selectively reduced'. None died naturally and the parents refused to abort any. The fetuses were born too early, at a time where they could still be legally aborted (at least in the US) and they weren't viable. Then the doctors insist on keeping all of the fetuses alive.

This doesn't seem in the least bit screwy to people?

Reply

Sandyone, my son was born 15 weeks early, weighing 1 1/2 lbs. Yes, he
was at higher risk of having CP, epilepsy, and about a bazillion other
things. However, he was viable out of the womb, with medical
intervention. No, it was not an easy road, he spent 88 days in NICU,
was on various ventilators until he was strong enough to breath room
air, he had heart surgery, collapsed lungs, twice, and too many to
count blood and plasma transfusions. (among many other things, but I
won't bore you with our 17 page, million dollar discharge papers)Yes,
he was technically still a fetus, and barely on the cusp of what is
considered viable. But, if I had refused medical treatment, the
hospital would have gone to court and gotten medical custody of my
son, so they could provide necessary medical treatment. And,
rightfully so. The Mom and Dad may be of a religion that doesn't
believe in medical intervention, however, the baby hasn't had a
chance to choose what s/he believes. It is one thing to refuse
life-saving measures for yourself, quite another to refuse them on
behalf of someone who has no voice. Today, my son is 2 years old,
and just like any full-term 2 year old, except he sees a PT and an OT
and has very mild CP, that is hardly noticeable. Did I have the right
to refuse treatment and steal this precious boy from the world? Who
made me God?

Reply

The parents' court filing said that the doctors told the parents that the babies would die after birth if not resucitated, and that if the parents chose not to resucitate, then the doctors would respect their wish. In other words, the doctors offered to allow the babies to die after birth because they had so little chance at a healthy life. Shortly thereafter, the doctors and courts forced extremely invasive procedures on these same babies. What changed?

The court filing also indicated that the blood transfusions were not deemed (by the doctors) necessary to save the children's lives, nor even certain to improve their health.

The family merely requested a hearing and requested the doctors to make more efforts to find alternative treatments. It is not clear that the family would have refused the blood transfusions if the doctors had presented evidence that they were necessary to save the babies' lives.

Why does everyone here assume that the blood transfusions saved the children's lives and no alternative was available? Have you never had a doctor make a stupid or lazy decision? I really think the reason for most posters' reactions is that they personally accept blood transfusions as a good thing. But just because it's accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean we should trample on the parental rights of people whose religions find it abominable.

This was a case of doctors thinking they were gods (what else is new), and that nobody had a right to question their methods. The social workers and courts followed along without even considering the family's concerns. There was no due process to even discuss whether the parents' rights superseded the doctors' rights. What is the point of parental rights if they can be completely ignored at important times like this?

Reply

the parents were more then happy to get pregnant through advice of a medical doctor but refuse blood from medical doctor's advice...why?????

Reply

OVER 450 JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LAWSUITS, COURT CASES, ETC. SUMMARIZED


This website summarizes 300 United States court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witnesses, including dozens of cases where the Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/



This website summarizes 160 United States court cases and lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against Employers:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

Reply

OVER 450 JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LAWSUITS, COURT CASES, ETC SUMMARIZED


This website summarizes 300 United States court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witnesses, including dozens of cases where the Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/



This website summarizes 160 United States court cases and lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against Employers:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

Reply