Nevada limits parents right for Blood Transfusions

DevonMcBride

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V7282.AP-Parental-Rights.html

Nev. Limits Parent Rights in Medical Care

By BRENDAN RILEY
Associated Press Writer

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP)--Children should receive life-saving medical treatments even if their parents object, the Nevada Supreme Court decided Tuesday in ruling against a Jehovah's Witness couple who refused a blood transfusion for their premature son.

After Jason and Rebecca Soto refused the transfusion for the infant in 2001, a Las Vegas hospital performed it anyway. Afterward, a Clark County district judge named the hospital as a temporary guardian to ensure such medical care would continue.

The Sotos then appealed to the Supreme Court, which held Tuesday that the parents' interest in the care of their child ``is not absolute.''

``The state also has an interest in the welfare of children and may limit parental authority, even permanently depriving parents of their children,'' the justices wrote.

Since the infant was unable to make decisions for himself, ``the state's interest is heightened,'' the court said.

The baby, a twin, suffered from anemia because his brother received more blood flow before birth. Stillborn and weighing just 2 pounds, 11 ounces, he was revived at birth but remained critically ill.

The twins, now nearly 3 years old, are fine, and no longer under hospital guardianship.

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed a friend-of-the-court brief that said it has no objections to conventional medicine, but follows verses in the Bible it says forbid transfusions.

AP-NY-04-06-04 2048EDT

Copyright 2004, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

kls

Hurray, I wonder how many jws really want a transfusion for their children but know Jehovah will strike them dead and knowing they will be disfellowshiped , really leave it up to the courts knowing the courts will side with the doctors. The burden is off the parents, they followed the rules so it's not their fault if the child received blood against their wishes. Like my jw husband say's ,,,if i need blood and i can't answer for myself , and it is given to me it is not of my doing. Sick s,o,b' s

Carmel

Next Headline: "Nevada Supreme Court Disfellowshipped by Jealous God, Jehovah. Soon to be Struck Dead"

will the robed peers shun their unbelieving bench sitters?

carm

Pleasuredome

a good decision

willyloman

The baby, a twin, suffered from anemia because his brother received more blood flow before birth.

...which demonstrates that twins share blood prior to birth, a form of natural transfusion the Society ignores in its simplistic position on blood.

The twins, now nearly 3 years old, are fine....

...because the state stepped in and saved one of them from ignorant parents who allowed an abusive religion to think for them.

hawkaw

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed a friend-of-the-court brief that said it has no objections to conventional medicine, but follows verses in the Bible it says forbid transfusions.

Nothing like coming on this board and the first thing I read has a "lie by omission" from the "Christan Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". The JWs follow not just a bible verse. The leadership prescribes the use different aspects of the Bible (out of context), proven independent medicine information and proven scientific information (eg. blood component passing between mother and fetus) to determine which transfusions they forbid and which transfusions they allow.

Enough said expect I wish the police would look into this more.

hawk