B.C. Seizes Sextuplets From Jehovah's Witness Parents For Forced Blood Transfusions

#31 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

*** g90 2/22 p. 31 When AIDS Is No Threat ***

When AIDS Is No Threat

On the evening of October 3, 1984, young Kyle Bork was born seven weeks prematurely. His tiny lungs were too immature to function properly, so he was transferred 35 miles [56 km] away to the Children’s Hospital of Orange County, where equipment was available to care for such critically ill babies.

The doctor explained that Kyle’s blood would need to be replenished through a blood transfusion; otherwise he would in all probability die. Although it was very difficult for the parents, they stood firm on their Bible-based decision not to permit their baby to receive a transfusion. (Genesis 9:4, 5; Leviticus 17:10-14; Acts 15:28, 29) The doctor was understanding and cooperative. Yet, he said, if the situation became absolutely critical, he would obtain a court order and give a transfusion.

Remarkably, Kyle showed steady improvement, and by the ninth day, he was removed from the respirator. Two days later the parents took him home, and he developed into a happy, healthy child, as you can see from the picture. But that is not the end of the story.

Last year a Los Angeles television newscast reported that a number of children who had been in the Children’s Hospital of Orange County about the time Kyle was there had contracted AIDS from transfusions of tainted blood. The hospital was trying to contact the families of approximately 3,000 children so that they could be tested for the AIDS virus.

Immediately, Kyle’s parents called the hospital to make sure that he had not been transfused without their knowledge. Shortly, the hospital returned their call to assure them that he had not received any blood and so was in no danger of contracting AIDS. “We literally fell upon our knees and thanked Jehovah,” the parents explained, “for giving us his righteous laws and the strength to maintain our integrity in the face of such a test.”

Quote:

*** g90 12/8 p. 28 Watching the World ***

BREAKTHROUGH?

Instead of transfusing blood, doctors in Japan recently treated an anemic premature baby with erythropoietin, a hormonal substance that stimulates red blood cell formation. The baby weighed only 1 pound 12 ounces [800 g] at birth, and “its anemia progressed to a condition that would naturally require blood transfusions,” reported the newspaper Asahi Shimbun. However, because the baby’s parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses, they refused the use of blood for their baby. So the doctors administered erythropoietin from the 39th day after its birth. Within a week the red blood cells started to increase. Later the hemoglobin concentration also went up. “Although the reason for this case was religious,” said the doctor in charge, “the treatment is very likely to be used widely to avoid risks such as infections from blood transfusions.”

Please contact local Jehovah's Witnesses HLC advisor for case studies where EPO quadrupled red cell count the day of administration.

Do you know yet of any accurate details regarding the cases of the babies? There really is nothing to discuss here yet until all the details are available regarding these cases.

#32 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 08:28 PM

I'm very sorry Julie, it was the day after administration that the red cell count had quadrupled not the same day. I recall from a previous discussion you have e-mail access to the HLC do you? Please refer them to this article and they may be able to pull up more details for you:

*** g93 11/22 p. 24 Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Medical Profession Cooperate ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieM

Dear Graham,

I do not think EPO acts quite as quickly as you suggest. Where did you get your information from? I’d like to read it myself. A quadrupling of red cells would prove lethal.

When it comes to premature babies, the medical study cited by Jan Wade in the Journal of Pediatrics remarks that EPO had realized disappointing results.

Sincerely,
Julie Morgan

Bambootiger@msn · #33 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 08:39 PM

Julie,
In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court stated clearly: "The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. . . . Simply because the decision of a parent [on a medical matter] involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state."—Parham v. J.R.
As you pointed out yourself any treatment involves both risks as well as benefits. Your arguments that the rights of Parents can be over ridden because they do not choose the treatment which the doctor feels has the highest chance of success can not ethically be sustained if the parents merely chooses another form of treatment which the doctor feels has less of a chance of success, As I pointed out in a previous message it is inconsistent for a doctor to tell the patient, or the legal guardian of such, that they have the right of informed consent only if they allow the doctor to make that choice, and in such a case there would be no choice at all. Since there are risks involved in blood transfusions then if such are forced upon a patient without consent either of themselves or their legal guardian then whoever performs such transfusions will be subject to liability and may face a lawsuit by the person or guardian whose rights they violated. If this happened to me I would pursue this course quite aggressively since it would be a violation of my person, dignity, right of free will, and self determination. Again the point that seems to be continually ignored here is that the parents are not denying medical care for their legal dependants, but are only exercising their right of informed consent to choose one form of treatment over another. That is a parent's right, and even more so it is their responsibility.

In Scotland, A. D. Farr, a college lecturer on blood transfusion techniques, wrote with regard to forcing transfusions on adults and children:

"The over-ruling in respect of a minority religious belief is extended to over-ruling the whole principle of an adult being allowed to accept or reject a particular form of medical treatment. . . . The State is gradually taking over the function of making decisions for the individual. It is in this way that free countries cease to be free and become totalitarian. It was indeed by the taking-over of the German children into the Hitler Youth movement that freedom and privacy were finally suppressed in Nazi Germany. This is not mere fanciful speculation. Freedom is a precious and comparatively rare possession, to be jealously guarded in those countries where it exists. Any one encroachment on individual liberty is one too many." -God, Blood and Society (1972), by A. D. Farr, p. 115.

Really you are just repeating yourself. What you are saying is that the state always knows best and that it has the right to force people to submit to the view of the majority even against their will, and that there is no room for personal beliefs or choices. You merely give lip service to "informed consent" but then ignore it. How can you say that you respect the beliefs and rights of others if you are not willing to co-operate in any manner or do anything to accommodate such beliefs? What makes this different from a totalitarian state?
Bambootiger

#34 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 09:31 PM

Julie,

I say this at the risk of receiving little faces, but this now sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing...

I have children, they depended on me to know what was good to eat, and what was bad to eat, they depended on me to make sure they got to the other side of the street safely, when there was that big ol' nasty spider in the corner of the bedroom they needed me to take it out of the room for them before they would sleep at night, they needed me to help them through their education.

My children are an extension of me, if you take me out of the formula, what are they? I know better than any doctor who would oppose, that my children will never and have never needed a blood transfusion - whether premature or not. I can prove that the Bible has never been wrong in family values and everything else it discusses, sadly, and as noble a cause as it is - medical science cannot make that claim:

B.C. Seizes Sextuplets From Jehovah's Witness Parents For Forced Blood Transfusions

The rest of the medical community is moving away from blood and it is evident that some medical professionals need to catch up and help with that move as blood is the most dangerous substance used in medicine.

Quote:

*** g97 2/8 p. 29 Watching the World ***

Bloodless Surgery Gains Momentum

In late 1996 a hospital in Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A., joined 56 others across the country that have “bloodless centers for Jehovah’s Witnesses,” reported The Hartford Courant. “After studying the idea, hospital administrators realized that the wishes of Jehovah’s Witnesses were no longer so different from those of most other patients.” With the aid of drugs and advanced surgical techniques, doctors perform organ transplants and joint replacement as well as open-heart, cancer, and other surgeries—all without the use of blood. In addition, many health-care professionals now openly acknowledge the dangers of receiving a blood transfusion. Dr. David Crombie, Jr., chief of surgery at Hartford Hospital, candidly admits: “I was raised in medicine at a time when blood was thought of as a tonic. Now it’s thought to be a poison.” The Bible consistently forbids taking blood into the body.—Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25.

Julie, someone of your analytical ability would be very useful in the move forward away from the misuse of blood.

This matter is closed for me now.

Graham.

twins2teens · #35 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 10:03 PM

I have been following this story since I heard of these births with great interest. My heart goes out to this family.
I gave birth to twin daughters in 2004, the smallest weighing only 707 grams. They were both on ventilators and anemia did become an issue, but neither of our daughters received a transfusion. EPO and iron was begun the day after birth and minimal blood draws were ordered. The doctors were cooperative, respectful and paitent and we are thankful. Our daughters did leave the NICU with BPD and required oxygen, one baby for six months and the other for nearly a year. The smaller twin has experianced a mild developmental delay. Today they are both healthy and active toddlers, enjoying their life as much as we are enjoying them.

goudrea · #36 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 06:50 AM

[quote=JulieM;8491]Dear Goudrea,

Quote:

Progress always brings benefits regardless of the source

.
Right but you can not deny religion played a significant part concerning blood issues.

Quote:

Though the religious position taken by most Jehovah witnesses about blood transfusion has significantly influenced the medical community in relation to treatment options, it is not the only driving force

.
Shouldn't we be particularly greatful for the extreme lengths they took and the hard decisions to abide by their faith and refuse what was proned by medecine as the ONLY solution proposed during many decades.

Quote:

Medical science is constantly striving for improved therapies. As medical science recognizes complications and hazards associated with a particular treatment this community of dedicated scientists is compelled to find newer and better medicines, technologies, procedures or methods of delivery. This is a non-religious force affecting blood based therapy

.
Did organisations involved in blood products recognize their mismanagement and the infection of so many with deadly diseases. For how long were they aware of the dangers and didn't bother to change their practices (Kreaver commission).
What about the Arkansas inmates given blood transfusions with 'HIV' . Were they sick? Doctor's orders? Hurt and bleeding? NO. Why did they get blood transfusions in the first place? They are suing the governement they claim is responsable for this mess. .

Quote:

National interest compels governments to improve military efficiency. A major cause of mortality in wartime is hemorrhage on the battlefield due to trauma. This is another non-religious force affecting blood based therapy. This force also represents an economical incentive for research and development of alternative therapy.

When my father was a young soldier it was a common practice to give blood transfusions to ALL the demobilized soldiers before sending them home to their wives in order give them a 'boost' whether they had been wounded or didn't even have a scratch. These men came back with what kind of infectious or deadly diseases? Was the blood imported from 'modern society' or collected locally with all the risks associated with viruses we didn't even know about. ''Congo Belge''

Quote:

Societal fear builds an economic market for alternate therapy. When a populace learns of fearsome diseases related to blood transfusion then it starts asking for alternatives and is willing to pay for it. This is another non-religious force affecting blood based therapy.

When warned of such diseases. Isn't it also true the the word is out to ''camouflage'' as much as possible the risks. A serious look at consent forms offered to patients concerning the risks of blood transfusions in certain hospitals is surprising. Different Web sites involved in the ''blood collection'' affirm how 'safe' the blood supply has become. Is it so? Many countries pay blood donors. Here it is considered 'a gift of life' We don't pay the donors...but we charge to provide it. Why would a force not motivated by 'obligation to provide alternative therapy' opt to find a replacement for blood. After all don't they believe it is the 'Only' or 'Best' therapy.

Quote:

The business of providing blood to the medical market is like any other business except the raw material supply depends on voluntary donation, at least in developed nations. Otherwise those in the business of collecting, processing and distributing blood for medical purposes have no particular bias towards the product (blood).

Just as any other business...when the blood supply is high you have to get rid of the 'over stock' regardless if the necessity is real or just borderline (according to the physician).

Quote:

Those who are in the business for economic reasons are only following market demand like any other business. When market demands change then we have every reason to think these will again follow market demand. Those who are in the business for humanitarian reasons will happily look to alternate therapies as they represent the best medical outcomes.

What would motivate them to look for alternatives...after all they are convinced 'blood is the ONLY saving therapy' Isn't this why they are collecting it for ''humanitarian reasons'' Otherwise wouldn't they have opted for other ''humanitarian therapies'' in the first place.

Quote:

When we pay for blood products we are paying for the delivery and not the blood itself. So the business of blood is about delivery and not the product.

...then we may assume delivery prices have jumped quite high in a short time.

Quote:

According to top minds in the medical community, including several ardent bloodless enthusiasts, the blood supply is safer than it ever has been. But that does not mean blood therapies are immune from risk. Like any other medicine, use of blood comes with risk.
Quote Julie Morgan

Would top minds of the medical community take a blood transfusion for themselves? ....That is the question.
Compelled to review their practices yes Blood organisations had to 'get their act together'. But is it safer? How many more infections, viruses and other blood transfusion complications unknown now will we discover, just as HIV, hepatitis etc was discovered?
Is it not last november that an important blood bank was compelled to 'clean up' or pay fines?
Confidence in science and society has let us down many times before. Let us not forget that greed is a powerful motivator.

Jabrwock · #37 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bambootiger@msn

You missed my point and miss-interpreted my comment entirely.

Could you clarify then please? I interepreted your point to being that the doctors shouldn't have tried, because statistically those babies would have died, transfusion or not. And my point was that doctors usually try to beat the odds.

Jabrwock · #38 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Ledford

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.

Please cite your sources. I've heard of no such Supreme Court ruling with regards to this specific case. All precedent cases I've seen ruled that parental rights end where the right to live of the children begin.

The current lawsuit that I'm aware of is the father suing the government because they didn't let him attend the hearing in which the judge issued the seizure order...

A clarification of why the doctors can suggest abortion and then turn around and fight for the preemies lives. Unborn fetuses in Canada do not have the same legal rights as preemies (although 97% of Cdn abortions happen in before the first 12 weeks is up, and another 2% happen before 16 wks). Once they're out of the womb, though, the legal standing changes. If the preemies take a breath after exiting the womb, then the doctors at that point treat them as they would any other child, and fight to save their life.

#39 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 12:02 PM

Hi Julie,

As I mentioned, this matter is closed for me, there is no data to discuss regarding the topic of these children who were forced a transfusion for which there is no evidence it will do any good other than violate them and dispose them to disease.

It's just that some of the methods behind these conversations are resembling a Monty Python sketch I once saw called the Argument Clinic, the sketch resulted in nothing less than contradiction. In many instances when a matter of discussion comes to such a point it is better to agree to differ if there is a genuine motive to keep the peace and make progress.

Many thanks,

Graham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieM

Dear Graham,

Top minds in the medical field of bloodless medicine understand both the benefits and the limitations of bloodless medicine and technique. Hence we have every reason to expect these men and women would accept transfusion of a blood product if it were necessary under circumstance to prevent mortality. Bloodless advocates such as Dr Richard Spence transfuse patients with leucoreduced allogeneic blood when medically necessary and the patient does not refuse the product. If he applies this therapy to his patients then we should expect he would accept it himself under the same circumstance. If he thought risk of this product outweighed the benefit then he would not use it on his patients.

When I wrote the blood supply is safer I was depending on statements made by doctors who are also bloodless advocates.

There is an elevated risk anytime we expose ourselves to allogeneic biological material. This is true whether the exposure is by ingestion, intravenous, injection or direct application.

Greed is indeed a very powerful motivator and one we can count on in modern society. Ironically this motivator is another force compelling pharmaceutical companies to develop safer alternatives to blood based oxygenation therapies. It is probably the strongest motivator of all those I mentioned earlier.

In your comments you seem to neglect the serious blood borne pathogen exposure to members of your faith. These too accept a wide range of blood products, and these carry risks too. In some cases the risk is higher than transfusion of whole blood. This is because products such as cryoprecipitate are produced from plasma pooled from many donors.

I am editing this reply to remind everyone that I too am an advocate of bloodless medicine.

Sincerely,
Julie Morgan

LarryEitel · #40 (**permalink**) 02-06-2007, 01:09 PM

Much can be learned by all regarding this case. However, please be reminded of the following excerpt from our Terms of Service document:

In consideration of being allowed to use the Public Areas, you agree that the following actions shall constitute a material breach of these Terms and Conditions:

4) Posting material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, slanderous, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person or entity, or which inflammatory or divisive, as determined by NoBlood Site Moderators or Administrators in their sole discretion; (There is a zero-tolerance policy here against personal attacks. We will not tolerate anyone insulting another individual's opinion nor name calling and will BAN repeat offenders.)

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Age consent for Jehovah's witness minor to accept blood.	taniasjijo	Ask a Professional	2	03-01-2008 07:16 AM
Quebec judge orders blood transfusions for twins of Jehovahâ€™s Witness parents	Jan B. Wade	News and Hot Topics such as Hepatitis C, SARS and AIDS	0	05-27-2007 07:12 AM
Resuscitation Of A Jehovah's Witness With Multiple Injuries Without Blood:	Sharon Grant	Medical Articles and Abstracts	0	12-15-2006 10:31 PM
Program for Jehovah's Witness Patients Reduces Overall Blood Use	LarryEitel	News and Hot Topics such as Hepatitis C, SARS and AIDS	0	09-25-2006 09:37 AM
Blood conservation strategies in Jehovah's Witness patient	Jan B. Wade	Medical Articles and Abstracts	0	11-12-2003 01:46 AM

B.C. Seizes Sextuplets From Jehovah's Witness Parents For Forced Blood Transfusions

Welcome to the latest in bloodless medicine and blood transfusion alternatives.

We are a community of medical professionals and members of the public who are responding to the worldwide concern about the efficacy, cost and availability of donor blood.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)