Thursday, February 01, 2007

BC baby snatchers?

B.C. seized 3 sextuplets for blood transfusions
Father, a devout Jehovah's Witness, likens province's intervention to 'a hit and run'



(H/T: Matt from The Calvinball Diaries)

I thought this was a really interesting case - the sextuplets were born prematurely in early January.

Early in the pregnancy doctors asked for the parents' consent to perform "selective reduction" that is, abortions on some of the foetuses to improve the chances of those remaining. When the parents refused to consent, doctors respected their wishes.

Before the children were born, doctors asked the parents whether or not they wanted their children resuscitated, reminding the parents that these children, being premature, could have life-long handicaps. The parents told the doctors that they wanted the children resuscitated, and, far as I can tell, the doctors respected that wish as well.

However, when the parents refused to consent to blood transfusions for their children, three children were seized and the procedure was performed without parental consent.

Two of the sextuplets have passed away since their birth early in January, and, to be sure, this is a very sad case. But while it must be heartbreaking to have children die, these parents have done all that they can, according to their beliefs, to keep their children alive.

This is in spite of what I read from the article as insinuations that the children might be better off if they were allowed to die by their doctors. (Note: This is simply my interpretation of the article. The doctors may have urged the parents not to perform the selective reduction and to resuscitated them.)

The government simply has no right to take children from their parents, and I can't figure out why this was the stage at which these doctors thought they could justify it.

I wish these parents luck at their Supreme Court date.

3 comments:

canuckistanian said...

do you think that a parent who believes the flying spaghetti monster told them that they can't give their children medically necessary care even if this will kill their children should be allowed, under their constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom, to kill their children??? i think the state has a responsibility to protect human life when it is threatened by delusional belief systems...just my opinion.

mostlyfree said...

Be fair. They they do not have the freedom to kill their children, nor is that what they are trying to acoomplish - they are choosing what treatment will be allowed, based on what they believe is best for them.

I would rather that parents, assuming they are of sound mind, make the decisions regarding their child's care than the state.

I realize this is a fine line, but Jehovah's witnesses are not flying spaghetti monster worshipers, and refusing a medical procedure is not akin to refusing food or water, even if it results in the same outcome.

Kerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.