I realise it doesn't completely co-mingle (it would certainly cause a LOT of complications if it did), but it does enough that I would argue that there was already a transfusion from mother to child and vice versa, even if only an extremely minor one. Otherwise the Rh(D)-factor complications would not happen (the babies blood needs to come into contact with the mother's blood in order for the immune system response to occur), although this is much more likely to be due to a placental bleed rather than an actual co-mingling.

Still, the fact that a minor transfusion can occur without the mother even knowing about it... Well I'll leave the philisophical discussion for another thread.

The only thing I've never figured out is why the Rh(D) factor can cause such complications, but not blood type (A,B,AB,O) (during pregnancy).

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)

I'm sorry about the miss-spell. It got past me.

Quote:

The last I heard the babies were returned to their parents and only one received a blood transfusion.

Two died, then three were seized, and two received transfusions. The last infant is presumably doing fine, otherwise I imagine it would have been seized as well. All have been returned to their parents.

Quote:

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?

The doctors may have wanted to examine the kids to see if they needed the transfusion or not. Which is probably why only 2 of the 3 seized got one. The 3rd may not have been sick enough to need more than an alternative treatment.

Quote:

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?

In Canada, the (legal) right to life begins before birth, but after conception. The doctors would most likely have recommended an abortions early in the pregnancy (ie before the legal cutoff). Then again, if the life of the other babies is in danger, the legal cutoff can be extended. Also remember they were born very premature, so the time between the cutoff for abortions and the time of birth would have been much closer than in a regular pregnancy. They were born 3 months early I believe.

Quote:

Would that not mean that, on an average, one child out of five would die even with blood transfusions?

I recommend watching "Gattica" if you're going to tell me you decide whether to try to save someone's life based on a statistic.

Quote:

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 is if the "alternative treatment" is ineffective. But not knowing what exactly ailed them other than severe anemia, I can't comment on how effective any other treatment would be. But I do know that transfusion is definitely a "most likely to make them better, fast" treatment for severe anemia in preemies.

Jabrwock,
Quote:
Would that not mean that, on an average, one child out of five would die even with blood transfusions?
I recommend watching "Gattica" if you're going to tell me you decide whether to try to save someone's life based on a statistic.
You missed my point and miss-interpreted my comment entirely.

Julie,
You said : "So far there are two surviving babies, but this is not over yet. "
Do you have that backwards? The last news I have is dated Febuary 3 and says that there are 4 survivors.

Medical evidence and thus medical practice is moving away from the likes of blood transfusions. Just as they moved away from the poor hygienic practices of tending to the dead and then walking into another room to deliver a baby, and the sort of blood letting that contributed to the death of a President named George Washington, and the sort of transfusions that led to even the Pope getting Cytomegalovirus. Let's face it, it's happening, why? One important reason is that Jehovah's Witnesses need it to do so, and their battles have led to others seeing a need also - others especially so as a result of the scientific discoveries of the many diseases we know of.

Does anyone definitely know what the health issue was/is with the babies? Was it anemia? If so how extensive was their condition? Is there anything to actually 'debate' here if these details aren't known? If there aren't facts and figures to reason on then what is the motive of the discussion? It doesn't sound like a medical matter to me but rather an ethical/moral/religious matter.

Maybe this matter should be revisited when there are some current facts on the table and it can be discussed in a medical manner. Does anyone have any realistic current data or are we still in flux with media scrapings?

"But doctors are trained to evaluate patient presentations and then apply standards of medical treatment established by the medical community." That SHOULD include bloodless alternatives.

"If a doctor were to refuse blood transfusion to restore adequate oxygenation to a child who is dying from lack of tissue oxygenation we would call that homicide." Why would you call this homicide, especially if the parents were asking for alternatives that they know through study are available? I believe the doctors are at fault here, asking the local government to help them force on an family an antiquated treatment strategy that the medical community itself has spoken out against.

Julie, you make some remarkable assertations.

"If Canadian law allows duly appointed authority to impose a medical treatment on a minor child to save the child’s life despite parental refusal, then all we can say is that the action is legal." It may also be immoral or unethical.

"Society determines what is right or wrong from a medical ethical perspective." That is the whole problem. Society determines way too much, as evidenced from the decaying morals in today's society.

"Of course legal issues need the support of the Supreme judicial body of whatever sovereign state is involved. From what I’ve read it appears the action taken by hospital administrators in this case is legal." How can this be, when the Supreme Court upheld the parents rights, not the doctor's wishes. It appears that what was done was completely illegal.

"Those premature babies need and deserve the best medical care available in order to give opportunity for them to gain their own self-determination." As posted above, the "gold standard", or "best medical care available" for many, many health care professionals is non-blood care.

"Children also have certain unalienable rights which override parental authority. One of these is a right to life." Then, since you so aptly put this, why would you support the doctors who wanted to abort 2 of them, thereby ending their lives - their right to live?

"The doctors who advised aborting two of the six fetuses were probably making a recommendation based on statistical survivability. In other words, they were trying to save as many of the lives as possible, from a statistical perspective. By aborting two of the six the remaining four would have far greater survivability." Wow, what a turn around from the right to live.

Put it plain and simple: The Supreme Court said the parents rights were to be upheld. The local authority disregarded the Supreme Court ruling, and thereby they violated the ruling. The government DID NOT act in the best interests according to the Court ruling.

This is an out right attack on an innocent family,and shows how abusive the government is with their power, Totally disregaurding the rights of the parents and inposing their will in an unjustified manners. I think Hitler did stuff like this, and he wasnt seen as good by any means. So why would they copy someone like him. This is not a tough call to make. NoBlood.org isnt something new or revelutionary. Doctors now days know very well how to respect the rights of parent who refuse blood for their children, and if Doctors think the parents dont care about their children, then why would they take them to the hospital in the first place. Whats next? Are they going to make Hindu's eat groung beef to build protein!