B.C. Sextuplets Seized for Blood Transfusions

[Aggie]

An interesting story shaping up in British Columbia, where sextuplets were born prematurely to a Jehovah's Witness couple earlier in January.  The parents refused for blood transfusions to be performed on religious grounds (commonly needed for premature babies).  Two of the children have since died, and the remaining four have been (AFAIK, temporarily) seized by the BC Government - three have or will be receiving blood transfusions at the time of the article.

Article Here

So....  comments?  Who should have the right to decide the fate of these babies - the parents or the government?

[Swatopluk]

I remember similar discussions over here (usually caused by Jehovah's Witnesses).
Vaccination is another tripwire.
I think there are 2 situations where the state has a right, maby even duty, to act that way and override individual rights.
1. To save lives that can't defend themselves but without causing harm by doing it.
2. To avert danger from a larger group.

In the given case it looks to me like the children have a true chance to grow up normally provided they get the care now. The more they are likely to be handicapped despite care the more I would leave the decision to the parents.

The second situation would e.g. be, if the persons in question would be (potential or acute) carriers of infectious diseases that can be neutralized by medication or vaccination.
I remember a situation in the Netherlands where there was a minor epidemy of a children's disease. Some parents refused to let their children be vaccinated and additionally a religious group that was very strong in the healthcare business (esp. nurses) was unvaccinated too due to their faith.
Result: Children carrying the disease treated by the optimum spreader of the same.
There was an acute discussion of enforcing vaccination of the children. Suspending the nurses for the time being was nearly impossible because there were no replacements available.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Although it may seem like a topic drift, I know that some people doesn't want mandatory vaccinations on the grounds of a correlation between mercury (in the vaccines) and autism.

The point here is: while in principle I wholeheartedly agree with BC's decision, what happens if there is a legitimate concern with the medical treatment itself? For instance, not too long ago (and still some people believe) that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that the drugs used to treat it, caused the immunodeficiency. All evidence shows that they were wrong but there were some valid counter-arguments.

At what point a genuine (medical) concern is enough to force or not compliance with a particular treatment?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It IS a quandary.

A strong case COULD be made that the children's mental welfare is severely compromised by certain religions, yet we routinely allow parents the freedom to teach it anyway. 

Were it up to me, I'd tend to let the parents choose, and if their kids die as result of that choice, the parents must needs face charges of manslaughter.  Doesn't do much for those particular kids, unfortunately, but it does set the stage for the next fight.

And here's a sticky question?  As I understand it, multiple births like that ONLY come from some form of enabling medical techniques.

It seems a bit hypocritical on the part of the parents--they obviously were willing to compromise their beliefs to GET PREGNANT, but when the LIFE of their kids is at stake---hmmm.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Googling I found a cached page with this statistics:

Hellin's Law states that before the advent of fertility methods, the natural occurence of multiples would be as follows:

            Twins - 1 in 86 live births
            Triplets - 1 in 7396 live births
            Quadruplets - 1 in 636,056 live births
            Quintuplets - 1 in 54,700,816 live births (54 million)
            Sextuplets - 1 in 4,704,270,176 live births (4.7 billion)
            Septuplets - 1 in 404,567,235,136 live births (404 billion)

So it is possible, just hiiiiiiighly unlikely.

[Swatopluk]

In a very old (not Guinness) book of records I found that there is only one birth of septuplets recorded (at least before the introduction of fertility enhancers). It was fatal to the mother and most (maybe even all, don't remember) of the children.

I think the problem is only of interest in cases of potential victims that can't decide for themselves. An adult has the right to refuse treatment for him/herself (though his ability to spread a disease may be abridged by authorities).
Concerning enforced vaccination I am of two minds too since I heard about the mercury preservative in US vaccines (I wonder how that became legal in the first place).
Generally I would prefer to leave the decision to the parents after they have been thoroughly informed about the possible consequences (including legal ones).

On a completely different level are the attempts of religious movements to enforce their views concerning medication/vaccination on others. The most recent case is of course the resistance of Christian and Hindu fundamentalists against the vaccination of girls against papilloma viruses that cause cervical cancer because "it is an endorsement of premarital/promiscuous sex". The RCC also opposed vaccination on principle in the beginning because it is not allowed to do anything evil (infect somebody) in order to achieve something good (protection against the disease). Btw, they opposed invasive surgery for the same reason.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

The RCC confuses me frequently.

...I heard about the mercury preservative in US vaccines (I wonder how that became legal in the first place).

If I recall the research I did for a project on vaccines, that mercury preservative now illegal, but I could be wrong. It was a while ago, and I switched topics later anyway.

On this topic, I have two thoughts about it.
First, I understand why the BC government took custody of the children. Same reason why the government takes children out of the hands of incompetent parents.
But on the other hand, it violates parental authority and freedom of religion.

[Griffin NoName]

On this topic, I have two thoughts about it.
First, I understand why the BC government took custody of the children. Same reason why the government takes children out of the hands of incompetent parents.
But on the other hand, it violates parental authority and freedom of religion.

Slightly off topic but not wanting to start a separate thread as it does involve parental authority and freedom of religion, I was incensed this morning by an article in The Guardian about circumcision because I found it misleading and that always infuriates me. Anyone interested, read the article and my views below.

Whatever one's opinion on the act of circumcision, the writer's experience was so different than my own but he talked as if it was always like that. I was given the "honour" - it's a Mitzvah - of holding my nephew while he was circumcised. It was going to happen anyway so it seemed the least I could do for the poor little chap. He was given an anaesthetic, he didn't have any part of him tied down, there was no evil instruement, he only gave a little yelp at one point. He had a feed straight after and settled down well.

I left the house during my sons'. It was unbearable, but also unbearable not to have it done. I returned immediately after and neither time did either of them seem unduly distressed. A bit fretfull at first but not for long. Both were circumcised by a qualified surgeon (with anaesthetic) - Jewish - and with the relevant ritual in our own home. Neither was tied down - they were held by their father.

The only thing in the writer's article I could relate to was his mother using the word unbearable, although not in the way she used it. It is an unbearable choice, whether to choose to, or to choose not to. I'm not sure it's a choice anyone but the parents can make while religions and belief systems exist.

So, should The State allow us to cut chunks off our sons?  How does it relate to female circumcision?  Where do you draw a line between this and the restrictions of the Jehovah's Witness? These are all tough issues.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

An from the : I read somewhere that circumcision lowers the risk of STDs (which to a degree makes sense) so there may be a valid reason to do so.

[Swatopluk]

Concerning circumcision as phrophylactic:
Useful only in high risk areas (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa). In Central Europe the risks would easily outweigh the advantages (as with some vaccinations where the risk of dangerous side effects are higher than the local risk of infection).

concerning mercury preservative:
From what I heard the companies knew about the risk and stopped producing it but didn't want to scrap their existing stocks and continued to sell it (especially to the Pentagon).

[Aggie]

An from the : I read somewhere that circumcision lowers the risk of STDs (which to a degree makes sense) so there may be a valid reason to do so.

Only relevant for *unprotected* sex, as condom use negates the mirco-abrasion damage to the foreskin.  So, it's a potential reductions in STDs for men in high-risk sexual activity, and IMO, will give a false sense of security if anything = more STD transmission through unprotected sex.

Side note:  Re: the parent's use of fertility treatment vs. blood transfusions; JWs have specific restrictions against the consumption of blood (whether dietary or transfusions), and not generally against modern medical techniques. 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Side note:  Re: the parent's use of fertility treatment vs. blood transfusions; JWs have specific restrictions against the consumption of blood (whether dietary or transfusions), and not generally against modern medical techniques. 

What a silly distinction.

So, what, do they avoid ALL red meat, then?  You CAN NOT remove ALL the blood from red meat, even if you put it in a 10,000lb press... (WHY do you think it's RED? )  For that matter, I seriously doubt you could remove all the blood from ANY meat--so are they serious, and they are ALL vegetarians, then?      Or, is it just an arbitrary thing, sort of like Baptists' requirement of all new members to be re-baptized into the local church ... *sigh*

Very silly people, I think. I normally try to have respect for one's beliefs, but this is --- rather sad, actually. 

[Sibling Chatty]

Or, is it just an arbitrary thing, sort of like Baptists' requirement of all new members to be re-baptized into the local church ... *sigh*

Whaaa?? I was Baptist for years, went to a Baptist college. NEVER heard of that one.

Baptized into a Baptist church if any previous baptism had not been by immersion, but that's it.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Or, is it just an arbitrary thing, sort of like Baptists' requirement of all new members to be re-baptized into the local church ... *sigh*

Whaaa?? I was Baptist for years, went to a Baptist college. NEVER heard of that one.

Baptized into a Baptist church if any previous baptism had not been by immersion, but that's it.

Different branch?  I dunno, I only read about it somewhere or other (one of the many comparative religion studies I did? --memory's going...)

The subtle distinction of it must be total immersion I could see a case for, actually.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

What a silly distinction.

So, what, do they avoid ALL red meat, then?  You CAN NOT remove ALL the blood from red meat, even if you put it in a 10,000lb press... (WHY do you think it's RED? )  For that matter, I seriously doubt you could remove all the blood from ANY meat--so are they serious, and they are ALL vegetarians, then?   

I think that if we were to prohibit people from acting on silly beliefs (or even just harmful silly beliefs), the world would be a very different place.

This case has me in two minds:

- first, I have no doubt that the remaining babies would come to harm (or very likely death) if the government had not intervened.
- second, in doing so, the government has declared that the family's beliefs are not worth following.

Were it up to me, I'd tend to let the parents choose, and if their kids die as result of that choice, the parents must needs face charges of manslaughter.  Doesn't do much for those particular kids, unfortunately, but it does set the stage for the next fight.

I'm not so sure about that.  I think that if something is wrong after the fact, it's wrong before as well.  If a criminal act is about to be committed on the children by the parents, then they should be separated.