I'm wondering how many of you could imagine being a doctor, and having to face the dilemma of not being able to help a life because of religious beliefs. Especially when the lives you're trying to save are reliant on someone elses decision. What would your decision be if you were the doctor? I'm prety certain I could not stand idly by and let a life slip away when there is some certainty I could save it.
I'm thinking all this seems rather odd. If the couple that gave birth to these little miracles had to receive artificial aide in order to conceive these babies.....how is it then not OK to receive artificail aide to ensure they live.
Pretty tough issues there, PC. If I was a doctor, I would do everything within my power to save the sextuplets. Even if it means stepping over the parents' belief. If it is within my means to save lives, I would do it in a heartbeat. Or fight to have it done. I couldn't just sit and not do anything especially when it comes to the lives of innocent babies.
I'd have called them out as hypocrites for using meds to get pregnant in the first place and say not to have a blood transfusion?! oh the nerve. Then again I'm not a doctor.
Me too Lise. I'm probably not the best person to make these kinds of calls.....but I think any religious beliefs should take a back seat to life. Although I am not a religious person.....I still view it as if I WERE.....I would see it as a 'god slap' to over ride the godly decision of life or death.
I don't think it's about 'meds'. I think it is specifically about blood.
Yup thats how bob marley died. They found a tumor on his big toe and doctors said they'd remove the toe and the cancer would be gone but he said it was against his religion to remove a part of the body so the cancer spread and he died from a contusion on the big toe from a cut, that grew and got infected, developed a tumor and killed him. Religion should not get in the way of health.
Either way its still silly. When I played football we would play this Christian Scientist school who do not believe in modern medicine at all. So when are star linebacker tackled and broke their running backs arm I watched in horror what they did to the poor kid. They just yanked his arm in place and put him in a sling for a couple minutes and then sent him back out on the field. His arm was completely motionless the rest of the game. Felt really sorry for the guy.
P.C. wrote:
...but I think any religious beliefs should take a back seat to life
Not to single you out P.C., but I just wanted to make a point and this is a handy quote.
JW's believe that when you die, there is nothing. Then when judgement day arrives, the faithful are resurrected to live forever in Paradise (like the Garden of Eden). The unfaithful are resurrected, judged and then destroyed.
Taking in blood is a mortal sin to them and by allowing their children to live a few more years now, they may be sacrificing eternity, (assuming that their beliefs could be correct).
To go one step further, remember Terry Schivo? It was the religious nutballs keeping her alive. By all accounts, she was not even a religious person, when she was able to conciously be one.
Personally, I'm not sure what I would have done if I was the doctor in either case.
I appreciate the insight, Raver. I'm a little short on knowlege when it comes to religious matters.
I'm sure their decisions make sense to them.
I know for certain, that if I were the doctor, I would have to be restrained before I could stand there and watch a baby die if it didn't have to.
well the point of a doctor is to save people right? So I'd have disregarded the religious jargon no matter what they say. If its for the good of the baby/person so be it.
You made a good point there, Raver but I still feel the parents are wrong in their belief not to accept blood in order to save lives. I still don't see the point of denying this chance to your own children. It's as good as 'killing' them when you say no to any treatment.
Still...... I'm wasn't there when they made their decision so I don't know. Perhaps one shouldn't pass judgement when you're not there to hear their story. It's just so hard because I'm a parent and I would do anything, literally ANYTHING, if it means extending my child's life.
I think that's somewhat my view too Lise. It IS the same as 'killing'. And there isn't a religion around that could convince me that it's more godly to do this, and send them to an early grave so they can party down for all of eternity than it is to revere the life you were given in the first place.
You're right, PC. I doubt God would have wanted you to end your child's life simply because it's a faster or 'right' way to get into Heaven. We should appreciate what is given to us now, what God has given us and not what other people claim stop you from doing so.
I feel sorry for the parents though. They have to live with this decision for the rest of their lives. The sad part is they probably think they did the right thing in the eyes of their Church and God. A real pity.
I feel sorry for any poor soul that hasn't figured out that the Golden Rule covers all goodness and doesn't need a faith to make it the most valuable lesson of all.
You've never heard of wars and killings in the name of the Golden Rule.....well have you?
P.C. wrote:
You've never heard of wars and killings in the name of the Golden Rule.....well have you?[/DIV]
Are you asking me? I admit, I don't know what the Golden Rule is.
Lol....it was more a rhetorical question.
The Golden Rule says...."Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
Simply stated, treat people the way that you'd wished to be treated.
OIC. Oops. *blush*
There is a separation of church and state... and state trumps church in terms of gay marriage and other unpopular stuff.. what are they waiting for?
JW's believe that when you die, there is nothing. Then when judgement day arrives, the faithful are resurrected to live forever in Paradise (like the Garden of Eden).
I understand Ravers points, but would it not then be considered an act of kindness to go around bumping off 'the faithful' ?
I suspect the answer to that would be that it would be considered a sin to kill......which to me brings it back full circle.
I had no idea that a blood transfusion was performed on the infants. The couple is demanding an apology from the province for overlooking their beliefs.
[H3]Sextuplets' parents want apology for transfusions[/H3] [P class=timeStamp]Updated Thu. Feb. 1 2007 4:44 PM ET
[P class=storyAttributes]CTV.ca News Staff
A B.C. Jehovah's Witness couple will demand an apology from the province over its decision to allow three of their four surviving sextuplets to have blood transfusions -- a practice that goes against their religion.
Two medical experts advised the government to seize the children, according to The Canadian Press.
Officials then used Section 30 of the B.C. Child, Family and Community Service Act. It authorizes the director of child welfare to act without a court order, if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe a child is in danger.
The sextuplets were born prematurely and two of them have already died.
One of the children was given a transfusion on Wednesday, while the other two were transfused earlier.
"The next thing is they'll be in court, likely in February, and they'll challenge the government and ask the courts to freeze the government's ability to have these children removed for further blood transfusions," said CTV's Vancouver Bureau Chief Todd Battis.
"Also, they'll be asking for an apology from the government. What they're really upset about is that they didn't get the chance to intervene with the judge on their behalf."
Their lawyer, Shane Brady, said Wednesday the family is upset that the transfusions were done against their wishes.
In an affidavit, the parents said they "could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl. We took our immense sadness and grief and tried to console each other in private."
"We want the best medical care for our children and want them to live. We have consented to all required treatment. We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions," they said in the court documents.
Brady appeared in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday to challenge the seizure order, which was implemented Friday without a court hearing. But the province abruptly handed control of the children back to the parents when they challenged the order.
However, the parents plan to press on. A court date has been set for Feb. 22 and 23 to hear them.
Supreme Court of Canada decisions from 1995 and 1999 gave parents the right to present evidence at any seizure hearings, said Brady. He has previously represented Jehovah's Witness families in such cases.
Dr. Kerry Bowman, medical ethicist at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday that the issue "raises deep questions in this country about people's right to religious choice."
"They could grow up to say I feel my rights as a child were violated, or not," Bowman said.
However, he pointed out that the hospital was primarily concerned about the well-being of the children.
"These babies, I think in my opinion, are in a lot of trouble," he said. "Two are gone already, they were born pre-term, there were six of them -- all those kinds of things -- so hopefully they can build a very strong argument for saving these babies' lives for these interventions.
B.C. Minister of Children and Families Tom Christensen would not discuss the specifics of the case.
However, Christensen said: "We don't take any such action without a great deal of forethought, recognizing that it's a significant step for the state to interfere in a family."
[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #dfffbf"]Doctors have an obligation if they believe a child is in danger, he said.[/FONT]
Brady, however, said the transfusions made little difference to the condition of the infants. He described them as being in stable condition.
The government made the seizure last week to permit the transfusions.
The sextuplets were born in the first week of January at the B.C. Women's Hospital. They were almost three months premature and were about the size of an outstretched hand.
While doctors said they had a good chance of survival, they would face significant challenges. For example, infants that are premature have underdeveloped lungs, problems with eating and weak immune systems.
The parents have chosen to remain anonymous and have not spoken to the media since the children's birth.
With a report from CTV's Todd Battis and files from The Canadian Press
[A href="vny!://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070131/sextups_seized_070201/20070201?hub=TopStories"][FONT size=1]vny!://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070131/sextups_seized_070201/20070201?hub=TopStories[/FONT][/A]
exactly.
Kids are fighting for their young life and the parents don't want something that will keep the babies alive? crazy.
I feel the same as the doctors in this case. I'm not saying it RIGHT......I just know that it's the only thing I would be able to do.