Government Intervenes

[gc1765]

The B.C. government got court orders to seize three of the surviving sextuplets born in Vancouver earlier in January and ensure they got blood transfusions if necessary. Two of the sextuplets have already died.

Link

Do you think that was the appropriate thing to do?

How does the right for a woman to choose compare with the right to resist medical treatment after birth based on religious grounds? Are there similar arguments for both scenarios? Are you opposed to one but not the other (abortion vs. this case)? Comments?

[Remiel]

I do not believe in letting children die because of their parents religious ideas. Religion is for adults, and if someone wants to choose to resist medical treatment after the age of say, 13, on religious grounds, fine, but not before. If the pro-life people want a cause to fight for, it should be this.

It's time we start arguing for freedom of religion, for children. Letting parents decide whether a child should die because it's against their religious beliefs are violating the freedom of religion of the child.

[Who's Doing What?]

I do not believe in letting children die because of their parents religious ideas. Religion is for adults, and if someone wants to choose to resist medical treatment after the age of say, 13, on religious grounds, fine, but not before. If the pro-life people want a cause to fight for, it should be this.

It's time we start arguing for freedom of religion, for children. Letting parents decide whether a child should die because it's against their religious beliefs are violating the freedom of religion of the child.

I agree. Totally rediculous for parents to allow their child to die because they are "forbidden" to accept a treatment due to their religion.

[ClearWest]

Good question! I definitely think that a person should be allowed to refuse their own treatment due to religious or whatever reasons. But to refuse someone else treatment? Initially, that raised flags in my mind.

On the other hand - who decides what's best for a child: the parents, or the state?

In these parents' minds the state has 'violated' their children. I think they have every reason to be upset.

Interesting scenario.

[jdobbin]

I think the parents should be left to decide the care. I think death as a result of refusing a transfusion is a waste but I think a parent's right to decide what care should be allowed needs to be preserved. I don't think it is abuse. I just think it is sad.

[gc1765]

I agree.

Until the kids are old enough to decide for themselves, who is going to decide for them? It would make sense that it's the parents choice.

[jbg]

I do not believe in letting children die because of their parents religious ideas. Religion is for adults, and if someone wants to choose to resist medical treatment after the age of say, 13, on religious grounds, fine, but not before. If the pro-life people want a cause to fight for, it should be this.

It's time we start arguing for freedom of religion, for children. Letting parents decide whether a child should die because it's against their religious beliefs are violating the freedom of religion of the child.

Bingo. A rare moment of agreement.

[jbg]

I think the parents should be left to decide the care. I think death as a result of refusing a transfusion is a waste but I think a parent's right to decide what care should be allowed needs to be preserved. I don't think it is abuse. I just think it is sad.

I feel strongly on this issue. Though I am pro-choice, that ends somewhere around 2-3 months into a pregnancy.

I worked at a camp for emotionally disturbed children during the summers of 1974 and 1975. On several occasions each summer, it was necessary for the camp to petition that the kids not be returned to unfit homes. These homes were not always abusive. One child was diagnosed as being likely schizophrenic. In the camp environment, he turned out to be virtually normal. The problem turned out to be that the child was of normal intelligence; both parents had imbecile-level IQ's, between 50 and 75 (I am in the middle of that range). The intelligent child had understandable difficulty communicating with retarded parents.

I do not, in short, believe that a child is its parents' property, to use, abuse, kill or let die as some crazed religious belief pronounces.

[jdobbin]

I feel strongly on this issue. Though I am pro-choice, that ends somewhere around 2-3 months into a pregnancy.

I worked at a camp for emotionally disturbed children during the summers of 1974 and 1975. On several occasions each summer, it was necessary for the camp to petition that the kids not be returned to unfit homes. These homes were not always abusive. One child was diagnosed as being likely schizophrenic. In the camp environment, he turned out to be virtually normal. The problem turned out to be that the child was of normal intelligence; both parents had imbecile-level IQ's, between 50 and 75 (I am in the middle of that range). The intelligent child had understandable difficulty communicating with retarded parents.

I do not, in short, believe that a child is its parents' property, to use, abuse, kill or let die as some crazed religious belief pronounces.

It is a controversial issue. Children are often taken away from parents. However, they are not taken away from parents who make the decision on circumcision. Why? Because it has been accepted practice and has a religious angle.

A overzealous government could say that a decision of circumcision should be made in adulthood rather than done to a baby. Some might say that a circumcision doesn't result in death but that misses the point. It is a parent's decision. It is not done out of malice and often not out of ignorance.

I still think denial of treatment is not necessarily abuse.

[jester]

I still think denial of treatment is not necessarily abuse.

Does this count for immunisations as well? Should I let my children play with the children of someone who may be putting mine at risk because of their beliefs.........

[jbg]

A overzealous government could say that a decision of circumcision should be made in adulthood rather than done to a baby. Some might say that a circumcision doesn't result in death but that misses the point. It is a parent's decision. It is not done out of malice and often not out of ignorance.

Circumcision at eight (8) days old barely hurts the child. They cry for maybe 30 seconds. Trust me, I've had two it's been done to.

[jdobbin]

Does this count for immunisations as well? Should I let my children play with the children of someone who may be putting mine at risk because of their beliefs.........

I know quite a few people who haven't been immunized. I don't think you can force it on someone.

[jdobbin]

Circumcision at eight (8) days old barely hurts the child. They cry for maybe 30 seconds. Trust me, I've had two it's been done to.

As I said, this isn't a debate about circumcision but about overzealous governments pushing treatments or denying a parent's right to decide their children's care. Refusing things like blood transfusions or immunizations is not abuse even if it ends in the death of the child.

[Melanie_]

Does this count for immunisations as well? Should I let my children play with the children of someone who may be putting mine at risk because of their beliefs.........

The kids who haven't been immunized are probably at greater risk than those who have been, at least in terms of catching the disease.

Who gets to decide medical treatment for these infants? We have child protection laws in place to guard against abuse, but I'm not sure this really falls into that category. I'm hesitant to say that the state has the right to override parents' decisions for their children, but in the end we have to think about the best interests of the child. Medical interventions give the babies the best shot at survival (and these children have a long shot at best - two have already died) and will likely continue to be necessary for some time in this case.

[Drea]

I believe it should be up to the parents... but then again how do we abide by the foreign born father who beats his 13 yo daughter? Is this not his decision as a parent?... If the parents of week old infants have the right to do "what they want" with the children -- does not the father of the 13 yo?

This is a no win no matter how yah look at it.

[Electric Monk]

Interesting question, in my opinion the rights of the child trump the rights of the parent in this case. (When the child receives those rights is a difficult question, but I think most would agree that birth definitely marks the beginning of the existence of a new human being, with the argument actually being over the 9 months preceding birth.)

The children are in danger of harm, and they have the right to medical care to prevent that harm. When they are old enough to decide for themselves if they want to become Mormons, then they can refuse all the medical attention they want.

I think it's time we started thinking clearly about matters of religious faith, the parents were clearly harming their children by refusing treatment.

[Black Dog]

Strange that the parents would refuse the transfusions based on the bizzare JW belief that such measures constitute "consuming" blood, yet seem to have no problem with the unatural process of taking fertility drugs. Goofy bastards.

[Drea]

Strange that the parents would refuse the transfusions based on the bizzare JW belief that such measures constitute "consuming" blood, yet seem to have no problem with the unatural process of taking fertility drugs. Goofy bastards.

That's what my mother thought in the early 70's and that's why we are no longer JWs.

What about circumcision though?

Some say it is not harmful to the child, whereas some say its traumatizing even for a week old baby.

I didn't have my son done (my dad and bro are done -- even though we were JWs, my mom thought it cleaner) because the doc said not to.

Well four years later my boy had to get done for medical reasons. It sure was traumatizing then! Poor little guy thought they ruined his equipment he was soooo upset (and sore).

[Black Dog]

What about circumcision though?

Some say it is not harmful to the child, whereas some say its traumatizing even for a week old baby.

I don't think it's that big a deal, if performed by a medical professional and not some random dude with a jack knife. I understand it is healthier, unless we're talking about the really disturbing Orthodox Jewish practice in which the circumciser sucks the blood from the infant's circumcision wound until the bleeding stops

[jdobbin]

I don't think it's that big a deal, if performed by a medical professional and not some random dude with a jack knife. I understand it is healthier, unless we're talking about the really disturbing Orthodox Jewish practice in which the circumciser sucks the blood from the infant's circumcision wound until the bleeding stops

It is still an unnecessary medical procedure that can be done and where an overzealous government could consider it a form of abuse.

As far as healthier goes, that's debatable. It will help stop the transmission of HIV to a considerable degree. However, the trend now for some Africans to get circumcised so that they can continue to have unprotected sex is probably an unintended consequence. It doesn't completely protect against repeated exposures.

I don't think that a Jewish mum and dad get their boy circumcised to protect against disease during unprotected sex later in life. They do it for religious reasons. And parents who do it for their boy for no religious reasons often do it so that their boy looks like dad or because of a visual preference rather than disease prevention.

Incidents of foreskin infection exist but circumcision is not considered the main way of preventing it: hygienic practices are.

[jbg]

What about circumcision though?

Some say it is not harmful to the child, whereas some say its traumatizing even for a week old baby.

I don't think it's that big a deal, if performed by a medical professional and not some random dude with a jack knife. I understand it is healthier, unless we're talking about the really disturbing Orthodox Jewish practice in which the circumciser sucks the blood from the infant's circumcision wound until the bleeding stops

I did not know about that practice. Thanks for calling it to my attention. It should be quite illegal.

[Canuck E Stan]

Well four years later my boy had to get done for medical reasons. It sure was traumatizing then! Poor little guy thought they ruined his equipment he was soooo upset (and sore).

Drea,

Just curious,(if you don't mind) what medical reason would there be to do a circumcision to a 4 year old.

-CES

[Drea]

No problem CES

His little foreskin would not "open" to allow urine to flow properly -- the penis would "balloon" with pee. It was painful and unsanitary for him.

This was inherited from my father who had to be cirucumsized at age 11.

That's why, even though we were JWs, my mom had my brother done, just in case he inherited this problem from dad.

[newbie]

I don't think it is abuse. I just think it is sad.

You don't think letting your kids die isn't abuse?? It sure as hell is in my books.

[jdobbin]

You don't think letting your kids die isn't abuse?? It sure as hell is in my books.

Yes, I do. And the reason is that if the government can force you or the ones you are responsible for to accept treatment, then that in itself is abuse. We all lose something. At what point would it stop?