by V 44 Replies latest watchtower medical
This is a fantastic editorial.
This is where the WTS is going to lose, every time. That the children - who have no voice in the matter, except for the protective mandate of the Child Protective Agency - did not choose to be born to Jehovah's Witness parents, and have a Constitutional RIGHT to LIFE that trumps their parents' Constitutional Right to Freedom of Worship, every single time.
Shane Brady can KMA.
being in vancouver, where the sextuplets are, we have had absolutely fantastic news coverage on this issue
and it is raising many more,,tonight, several x-jw's (one an elder) were on and they spoke very well agains the blood stand, etc
they even had tv coverage of web sites , i think probably sl's site, and more
cant wait for the next news broadcast
orb
Oh how I wish I was in B.C. right now, I would love to speak out locally there.
This has been fascinating to follow. It's a shame kid's lives are at stake to prove the point the Watchtower is a bad orginization. I'm glad the Canadian authorities have stepped up, protecting the lives of the remaining 4 and making the JWs look terrible in the process.
Looks like Jehovah's people are stumbling the world.
Alright, I have been reading some of the posts about this case. Not all of them, because frankly, I think the topic has had waay more posts devoted to it than it warrants. I'm sorry, but babies are born every day, and thousands are born in critical medical circumstances. This is sad, but it is not news. The only part of this that is unusual, is that it happened to be sextuplets, and the JW angle.
And I am I the only person that finds the idea of the government seizing someone's children, just a little disturbing? Yes, I understand that there are some bad parents out there, and in some cases, it may get to the point that the government may need to step in. But I think in general, the idea that the government is more entitled to make these decisions than the parents is questionable. Here's an example, also from Canada: Dionne quintuplets.
No Apologies
They were only taken temporarily into custody, just to give them the transfusions. The governement takes children away from parents all the time, especially when abuse is involved. Allowing a child to die for a silly publishing companies belief is the ultimate abuse, therefore I fully support the BC government in this respect. If the parents wont save the babies lives, then who will?
And I am I the only person that finds the idea of the government seizing someone's children, just a little disturbing?
If it is because of child abuse, bloody hell yes!
Besides the Canadian government "seized" legal control over the babies, thus permitting the doctors to perform tranfusions if needed. The babies were not whisked away in a physical sense.
And I am I the only person that finds the idea of the government seizing someone's children, just a little disturbing? And I am I the only person that finds the idea of the government seizing someone's children, just a little disturbing? !
absolutely NOT in this case. Not only from my understanding did the parents agree to reduction should a "litter" occur, having a wee bit of knowlege about the Genesis clinic that helped them conceive, I wonder how they got out of that!
If they took the treatment for fertility...which obviously worked!...they should accept the treatment for their premature infants. These babies are to small to produce their own bone marrow properly, making their blood unable to carry oxygen to where it is needed to live. Obviously, they need blood to live. duh!
No Apologies:
What it boils down to is what is ultimately in the best interests of the children. Is it in their best interests to perish prematurely, to have religious beliefs imposed upon them that they may not choose for themselves once they reach adulthood?
The Constitutional Rights that are at odds here are the parents' freedom of worship versus the children's inherent right to life. The parents felt strongly enough about the sanctity of life to not permit a selective reduction of the pregnancy. Yet, once the children are born, and their medical condition is deemed critical enough to warrant blood transfusions, their lives are no longer as "sacred" as the blood that is believed to be a "symbol" of life? The logic is so flawed that it's positively embarrassing that I ever bought into it. It boggles my mind that a conscientious JW woman would look after herself during pregnancy, knowing it will result in the best outcome for her child/children, and then deliberately refuse to do what it is in that child's / those children's best interests once they are no longer sequestered in her uterus and dependent on her placenta and umbilical cord for survival.
To borrow an axiom: A society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. If the group that is being referred to is the community of Jehovah's Witnesses, what does how these babies would be willingly sacrificed or martyred for the flawed ideology of the Watchtower Society say about the WTS? What right do these parents (or the Watchtower Society) have to decide that their "freedom of religion" takes precedence over their children's right to life? The audacity of the WTS to doom these babies to almost certain death is about as reprehensible as it gets.
The government took temporary custody of the children, and promptly returned custody to the parents once the children received the transfusions. I think it is important to have that kind of safety net in place for when parents make stupid choices that can seriously harm their kids.
Besides the Canadian government "seized" legal control over the babies, thus permitting the doctors to perform tranfusions if needed. The babies were not whisked away in a physical sense.
You're splitting hairs here. The fact is the government in this case decided they knew better than the parents how to care for their children.
Maybe we should all turn over our children at birth to the government. They could set up facilities where children could all be raised in totally controlled conditions. Then no one would have to worry about them.
I think the real issue is, does the parents refusal of a medical process that they find abhorrent and that they feel could jeopardize their child's eternal welfare, is that abuse? And who should make that call? you? me? some judge?
No Apologies
