Julie,
I don't know if the action taken by the hospital in this case is legal or not. I'm not a lawyer and as far as I know the case is still winding through the Canadian court system. The last I heard the babies were returned to their parents and only one received a blood transfusion. If the action was legal according to Canadian law and if a blood transfusion was the only possible treatment available and essential to their life, then why haven't the other three babies died, and why were they returned to their parents before receiving a blood transfusion?
You mentioned that the children have unalienable rights and one of them is the right to life. If this is what the doctors believe, and if this right is their first priority then why did they urge the mother to have an abortion of two of the babies before they were born? This, if followed, would have to led to two deaths, and presumable given the other four a better chance of survival. As it turned out the parents refused the abortion because they believe in the right to life. They wanted to give each child a chance to live; no matter how small that chance would be. Two of the children died, but as I pointed out two deaths out of six is not far from the statistical average. I remember reading a quote from one of the doctors involved in this case and he said that the chance of survival was 80 percent. Would that not mean that, on an average, one child out of five would die even with blood transfusions? The parents were not refusing medical treatment for their children. They were only refusing one aspect of that medical treatment. I don't know about Canada, but in the United States parents do have the right to choose an alternative medical treatment even if that alternative has a smaller chance of success. Choosing an alternative treatment is not the same as choosing no treatment at all, and it is not the same as letting them die. It seems, and this is just me personally, but it seems arrogant and closed minded that a Doctor would say in effect " You have to agree to whatever I say is the best treatment or I will give no treatment at all and let them die just to prove that I am right." That is what happened in the case of my Father, and not only were the Doctors arrogant and closed minded; they were also wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are not saying that they know more about medicine than the medical community in general; they are asking for a mutual respect, for doctors to give the same respect to their patient as they would expect for themselves. For a doctor to tell a patient "You have a right to make an informed choice for yourself or for your children, but only if you choose what I tell you to" is to give the patient no right to choose at all. Your own attitude is typical. I don't remember your exact words, but in an earlier message you mentioned that faith does not belong to a debate in this forum, but in this case faith is central to and an astragal part of the entire issue.
Thank you, by the way, for reading the article. According to the medical proponents of bloodless medicine there are fewer complications and a shorter recovery time. If blood transfusions are at present the most safe and effective treatment for preemies then the same could be said even five or ten years ago of operations which now have a higher rate of success with bloodless surgery at present. I am not though arguing that bloodless medicine is always superior to blood transfusions: that may or may not be the case. What I am saying is doctors ,when applying the principle of Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere ), keep in mind that this maxim includes "the whole man" i.e. not just the physical body but also other facets of a human being such as the emotional and spiritual ones. Jehovah's Witnesses live by the principle they call "relative subjection". In the U.S., for example, there are laws enacted by cities, counties, states, and federal laws. A state law supercedes a city law, and a federal law supercedes a state law, if these conflict. Jehovah's Witnesses recognize all of these, and that they have the obligation to be obedient to these laws, but they also recognize God as the highest lawgiver.
Julie, you and I will always disagree on this last aspect. I am not trying to convert you, or convince you the Bible is inspired from a supernatural source , that it is the truth, and that Jehovah's Witnesses are the true religion which follows the same. What I am talking about is tolerance and respect and consideration of others who believe in something different than you do. It seems that this last thing is sadly lacking in Canada.
I don't know about you, but I think that I've covered about everything which I know of having to do with this case; unless you want me to start discussing the laws and principles contained in the Bible which has a bearing here.
Bambootiger (google me sometime)