Jabrwock,

Just an FYI that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses uphold the preservation of life. Therefore your argument about the firstborn would not apply to this religious group.

Even as a "last resort", no doctor can uphold that a blood transfusion would be 100 % life-saving anyway, especially due to unforeseen "side effects" (potentially deadly ones) mentioned earlier.

The tragedy is that we live in a world where a "perfect" decision is not possible. We are like people who are living after a disaster. We are surviving as best we can. Some of us hope for a better future. We believe a good government is coming to our aid and that we must hold on until it arrives. Others feel that life in the disaster zone is all we have or perhaps they have a dim hope of something better, but it is a hope that is ineffective.

The result? People who believe a better government is on the way make decisions based on that hope. People who believe this disaster zone life is all there is make decisions based on that belief. The two positions often meet over a child sick in bed. A perfect decision would accommodate both parties. There is no perfect decision. What both parties need to do in this situation is respect each others rights.

__________________
Mr. Jan B. Wade
Blood Management Consultant
Enhance Outcomes - Control Cost
For Information Call - 360 296-1807
Email

Any doctor who claimed 100% effectiveness of any treatment plan should have his license taken away. And whoever believed such a "lie to children" should be given a reality check. Nothing in this world is 100% life-saving (even no-blood solutions). Everything has it's risks.

After further discussion, we have decided to delete a few of the previous posts. For anyone reading this thread, please review the following section from our terms of service. In particular, pay special attention to points 4, 7 and 15.

We hope that constructive dialog involving issues such as discussed in this thread will prove to be informative to any interested parties.

Thank you for your understanding and participation.

__________________
Larry Eitel
President & Webmaster

Click here and see who are advancing transfusion alternatives and blood management.

Can you spare a cup of coffee? Click here.
Thank you.

Mr. Eitel: I tried to make a post without my signature which includes my WAHM, but, although your editing tray has the signature unclicked, it still shows-your tray needs repair. ////

Just an update. The BC Supreme Court ruled that while the parents have rights to determine medical treatment, the right of the children to receive treatment for life-threatening illness trumps that right.

The court ruled that the doctors made the right decision based on treatments and options available at the time. They also ruled that the speed of the decision (ie skipping the parents attending the hearing) was allowable due to the immediacy of the danger to their health.

So had viable treatments been available, and time been in supply, the government would not have had cause to seize and treat the kids.

Sextuplet parents lose court battle over B.C. baby seizures

Considering the fact that sometimes a baby and its mom may come in contact with eachothers blood during pregnancy or delivery the question was asked, "Would tranfusion from mom be out of the question?" Very interesting question. The magnificent placenta does wonderful things for the baby's survival - acts a a lung, carries oxygen and carbon dioxide from mom to baby, acts as a liver, processes some of the mother's blood cell to remove iron and other necessary components for the baby's use. The placenta functions as a kidney filtering out urea from the baby's blood and passes it to the mother’s bloodstream for excretion through her kidneys. This extraordinary placenta never acts as a tool for blood transfusion to the baby from the mother - it doesn't have to. The baby is its own little person and has its own blood (soul, life). During some pregnancies a small porion of the baby's blood may leak or during some deliveries the mother's blood and baby's blood may combine. This, however, is not something that the mother voluntarily does. The answer to your question is yes - religiously speaking. An accidental exchange of blood between mom and baby during pregnancy or delivery, doesn't make it ok for mom to forego her religious belief by agreeing to a blood transfusion when she is fully aware of the decision she's making.

__________________
Felicia Fitts
"Living with love in your life. It's a beautiful thing."

They did not follow the guidelines set by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1995 as to how to handle cases with Jehovah's Witnesses that was supported by the secretary of the Canadian Medical Association. For example they are to make an effort to use non blood medical management, and they CANNOT have a court hearing without the parents present even in emergencies which they did in this case and they didn't call and inform them of the hearing which they HAVE to do. Doctors have to prove their medical validity, the parents have the right to challange a doctor's medical validity and they cannot usually have custody of Witness children.

The Supreme Court hearing occured over an incident in 1983 where a hospital had an emergency court order faxed to them without telling the parents and then used it three weeks later for an elective procedure and got away with it. The Supreme court didn't undo what had been done or penalise the hospital and it had been 12 years, but they strengthened parent's rights and based part of their decision on the Canadian Charter of Rights concerning religious rights and said that you can only overide parents under certain circumstances such as death or physical damage with no alternative, but the doctor would still have to prove his or her medical validity and the parents have to have the oppurtunity to challange the doctor's validity .

But lately they have been picking and choosing which laws they want to follow and saying one law overides another one which is actually not true. They also ignored strong legal precedents from the past including one supported by the Former Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association in the seventies.

Another case with premature twins in the same province with a different judge the doctor said he didn't think the alternative would work and the social worker called it psuedo science which they also did with the sextuplets. Except this judge followed the guidelines and told them to stop being so paternalistic and telling people which method of treatment to use. There have been comments in Canada about blood transfusion alternatives being psuedo science and the Jehovah's Witness thing to do.

Dr Shander an expert in bloodless medicine testified on the Witnesses behalf with the sextuplets that non blood medical management is not junk science and that Witnesses know more about blood transfusion alternatives than the doctors do, although he couldn't testify on the condition of the sextuplets as he was not permitted to see the medical records but usually there are alternatives available. I believe he was asked unless I am remembering wrong, what percentage of Englewood Hospital's patients are Jehovah's Witnesses.


Doctors sometimes think EPO will work slower on premature infants than it has turned out to in many cases and both of the doctors in question come from a specialty that I believe is sometimes in a bigger hurry to use blood and in some countries they are not allowed to get court orders and some hospitals that work with Witnesses have policies about that, also against getting court orders without telling parents as the ethical thing to do is inform them.

Also how professional is it for a doctor to blame someone because they chose not to get an abortion? That is private and it is the doctors that sent them home for two entire days and then said there was no time for the alternative to work and then had to hurry and do a rushed court order because they waited for two days. And then they did nothing for two of the babies and the parents had a doctor that would have worked with them. Also even if the doctors were right, if they voluntarily sent them home for two days, they might as well as have tried the alternative for that amount of time especially considering they didn't give blood to two or three of them and they had TWO whole days to inform the parents of the hearing and the BC Supreme Court allowed a doctor to get a court order against a minor without an attorney present which is illegal and her attorney said that he was taking it to the court of appeals and I don't know how it turned out, but I don't hold much validity in their court decisions right now.

Also they went by a provincial law that says that doctors can force medicial treatment against a parent's wishes and a child's right to live, but ignored the Canadian Supreme Court guidelines. They tried that with the premature twins but it didn't work in that case as the Supreme Court ruling still applies.

The doctors in question first said there are no alternatives to blood transfusions, then switched to they wouldn't work. They were in much worse condition two days later than they were two days earlier as pointed out by another doctor and then they admitted that they didn't give blood to two of them and they died so who was negligent here? Personally I feel that they waited two days intentionally so that they wouldn't have time to inform the parents, how obvious is that? I'm sorry if I am sounding one sided or as if I am just attacking the doctors but considering other things that have happened that is the way I feel.

Maybe you should be aware of all of the facts, including some things that I won't go into that have happened in Canada. With Witness teenagers and other minors, that Child Services have not been handleing their cases legally according to child rights activists and those that did the review of how well Canada is instituting the Child's Rights Charter which they failed. The report also complained that certain judges have their different interpretations of the law and pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws or parts of the charter are more important or that one law overides another one, which they also did in the BC case.

I also know of other things that have happened with parents over the years which makes me feel the way that I do, some of which worked out thankfully.

Anyway maybe you should be aware of of the whole story before you form an opinion, as well know Witnesses well because I can tell by some of the comments there is some ignorance here, especially since the information has been obtained from media outlets which usually don't say everything, the US media included, but they have always been a problem in Canada as regards to the blood issue.

Jehovah's Witnesses work for Child Protective Service Agencies, as Child Psychologists, Foster Parents, Domestic Violence and Youth Advocates, Other Social Work Fields, Physicians, Nurses, and Paramedics. Two of the fireman that died in the world trade center were Jehovah's Witnesses. As a Non-Witness you may not be as familiar with the Witnesses' intentions or you may not know the legal precedents or the legal system and thus may not see the whole picture.

The legal department at the Canadian Branch Office knows the legal system as well as what rights they do or don't have, so they wouldn't encourage them to fight over something without a reason. As a Witness I know that. Hospital Information Services as the Branch Offices of Jehovah's Witnesses keep up to date concerning alternatives including those for premature birth and have shown certain doctors case studies in how to use EPO in premature infants and can often fax information. Considering there isn't a standard for blood use in pediatrics and it varies from hospital to hospital and many doctors are unfamiliar with the alternatives to blood transfusions, people have the right to a second opinion.

Current Controversies In the Management of Anemia of Prematurity

Professionals | SABM Society for the Advancement of Blood Management

Professionals | SABM Society for the Advancement of Blood Management

Effects of EPO, Iron, B12, on Extremely low birth weight infants
Professionals | SABM Society for the Advancement of Blood Management

Adding Iron to EPO in Premature Infants
Professionals | SABM Society for the Advancement of Blood Management

Infants in Need of Transfusion

http://www.sabm.org/professionals/re...php?newsid=368

Neuroprotective Effects and Safety of EPO

http://www.sabm.org/professionals/re...php?newsid=770