Gov't gives infants blood transfusions over objections of religious parents

[llcooljabe]

Discuss.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canada's first birth of sextuplets has become a battle of church versus state over medical care for the surviving children.

The British Columbia government forced blood transfusions for two of the four surviving premature babies last week despite the objections of the babies' parents, who are members of the Jehovah's Witness faith and believe the Bible prohibits transfusions.

Gordon Campbell, premier of the province of British Columbia, defended the intervention, saying that while Canada protects religious freedom it also has an obligation to protect children's lives.

"We act, I think, with the children's best interest in mind, and we will continue to do that," Campbell told reporters on Thursday, a day after news of the government's intervention became public.

The sextuplets, four boys and two girls, were born in Vancouver in early January. The babies were delivered prematurely after only 25 weeks gestation, and two of the infants have since died.

Medical officials say premature babies often need blood transfusions as part of their early care, and British Columbia officials intervened to seize custody of three of the children last week after the two deaths.

A court has blocked publication of the family's name.

The parents, who have regained custody of the children, have asked the court to block future transfusions. They have also charged that the province's intervention violates their constitutional rights.

The children's father complained in a court document that because the parents wanted to use medical alternatives to blood transfusions "we have been stripped of our parental rights and have been labeled unfit."

The family's lawyer, who has represented Jehovah's Witnesses in other medical cases, alleges the province of British Columbia violated a 1995 Canadian Supreme Court decision that requires parents be given a fair hearing before intervention.

A court hearing on the family's complaint is scheduled for February 22.
The Canadian Medical Association does not have a policy dealing with blood transfusions for infants who object to the practice, said Jeff Blackmer, executive director of the group's ethics office.

But Blackmer said a doctor's first responsibility is to the patient. In the case of newborns who cannot make their own decision, the doctor may ask for intervention if it appears the parents are not acting in the child's best interest.

"This action is not taken lightly, but is often a last resort when the physician feels the patient is at risk of imminent harm," Blackmer wrote in an e-mail.

[Double High C]

Canader is right.

(Same thing would be done in the US.)

[Jack]

Of course they did the right thing. The kids shouldn't die just because their parents are nuts.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

A similar question would be "Should we let parents starve their kids if its a religious obligation?" Of course, the answer is that the parents should be charged w/ child endangerment.

[Mulan]

The further out on the "distance from reality" meter that a medically related religious belief is the more the state should be able to override it. The non-belief in blood transfusions MIGHT have made sense when people believed it carried ones soul/force/whatever, but the sheer number of transfusions and science have shown that there is nothing mythical about blood.

So sure, override the parents to save the kids in life/death/serious situations.

[Abnormal]

Don't forget that 2 of the babies have already died.

The family's lawyer...alleges the province of British Columbia violated a 1995 Canadian Supreme Court decision that requires parents be given a fair hearing before intervention.

Exactly. Let's wait while another couple of kids die for the court to make up their mind.

[Griffin 1]

Originally Posted by Mulan

The further out on the "distance from reality" meter that a medically related religious belief is the more the state should be able to override it. The non-belief in blood transfusions MIGHT have made sense when people believed it carried ones soul/force/whatever, but the sheer number of transfusions and science have shown that there is nothing mythical about blood.

Whether or not one agrees with the parents or agrees with the state, the argument outlined above is ridiculous.

[SamTheEagle]

Originally Posted by Griffin 1

Whether or not one agrees with the parents or agrees with the state, the argument outlined above is ridiculous.

I expect nothing less.

[whisper]

I agree with the doctors actions. Their primary duty is to the patient and if they feel that the guardian is not acting in the child's best interest they should take action to over-ride the guardian. I sympathize with the parents. They have strong beliefs in this regard, and believe that they are doing the right thing. Even though they plan on raising the children in their faith, its impossible to say if the kids will adopt it or reject it when of age.

I wonder if the government acted correctly in seizing the children. There is a process to follow, and if that process wasn't followed - the parents rights were violated. If the proper process was followed, the parents are out of luck.

[Double High C]

Sometimes, process should not - and must not - be followed.