An interesting assumption.

After the transfusions were completed, why WOULD the state keep custody?

From the info I found earlier, the state wouldn't be able to hold the kids longer than needed for the treatment, assuming it was emergency treatment. After that, barring any further danger to the children, the state would be *required* to hand the children back until a hearing could be convened...

Why, then, would the state releasing the children be a "surprise move"? Hmmmmm.....

Hello,
I have been reading information from different sources and have quoted from various...

The synthetic product to which Ruge referred is recombinant human erythropoietin, which is not used routinely because of some concerns about potential complications but it is used in extenuating circumstances. In some circumstances, it helps the body to produce red cells earlier. A study done at B.C. Children's Hospital in 1995 found the product had only a modest impact on anemia in premature babies and that some babies would still require conventional blood transfusions. Transfusions are still a required intervention in many premature infants.>
So, the bible obviously says nothing about high-tech fertility treatments….but the couple were educated in IVF (in vitro fertilization) and made a personal decision to pursue. They were aware that multifetal pregnancy reduction may be required and the odds were against the delivery of six healthy babies. Half of babies born at 24 or 25 weeks will die in hospital, and many of the survivors will have severe lifelong handicaps. Doctors said the mother could abort some of the fetuses at 12 weeks to give the remainder a better chance of life and health. She was offered the option again at 18 weeks. Later, she was given the opportunity not to have the babies resuscitated at birth. Each time she refused.
"As Jehovah's Witnesses," said the father, "we believe that to have aborted any of our sextuplets would be a profound disregard for life and violation of God's law."

I conclude that the Watchtower organization teaching is to make your own personal decision about IVF but no abortion and no blood transfusions. It is very difficult for me to understand why this couple made the decision to use IVF therapy and then did not follow through with the requirements?

According to Timothy Rowe, head of the infertility division at the University of British Columbia, all but two babies are usually aborted when infertility treatments result in three or more fetuses. This is done to safeguard the health and survival of the two remaining fetuses. The procedure is called a "multifetal pregnancy reduction," and it is usually carried out at about 10 or 11 weeks.>

Why did the JW couple request their confidentiality but announce to the press nationally that they were Jehovah's Witnesses? Does this state that they do not have the ability to make informed decisions? The parents may want to accept blood or blood products for their babies but refuse because of fear of social and religious effects of such a choice. Is it possible that the couple welcomed the intervention of the legal system? The WTS does not require JWs to shun members who have received a transfusion under court order. Regardless, religious freedom does not include the right to deny life saving medical treatment (2007) to a child.

fertility

With regard to shunning a member for taking blood, there is a big difference between making a willful choice to defy the Bible's command to abstain from blood and having blood forced on you through a court order. Willfully choosing to disobey our creator would result in expulsion; it's the same as a single woman being raped. Were she to engage willfully in sexual intercourse, thereby defying the Bible's clear command on sexual relations being reserved for the marriage union, she would be violating the creators command and would merit discipline. Being raped - having sex forced on her - would not be a willful violation of God's commands on her part.

But this is not the forum for these discussions.

More interesting information from a lawyer in Canada:

Comment: How hard is it to accommodate religious practice?

Here's an excerpt from the linked story. This attorney makes the point that tolerating someones religious beliefs is the core of Canadian tradition. He also points out that if the state must intervene by imposing medical treatment against, in this case, the parents religious beliefs the public should view this as a tragedy and rather than castigate the parents they should try to understand the trauma they are going through and support them.

This also brings into proper light the shameful actions of those who are using this event to promote their agenda, which is to attack the Jehovah's Witness religious position on blood transfusions.

Quotation -
"That brings us to another key event. The parents of the sextuplets born in Vancouver are Jehovah's Witnesses and, based on their religious beliefs, refuse to approve blood transfusions for their new children.

Two of the children have died; the cause of the deaths is not known. The B.C. government has obtained court orders to seize three of the surviving sextuplets, to ensure they get transfusions if deemed medically advisable.

The father has sworn an affidavit in the court proceedings concerning the seizure of the children. He explains that during his wife's pregnancy, they were given the opportunity to abort some of the fetuses -- and they refused, because of their religious beliefs. He also says that just prior to the children's birth, doctors said they support parents' decisions not to resuscitate children born so premature. The parents decided to resuscitate the children at birth.

These appear to be parents who very much want their children to live. The father's affidavit says the refusal to approve transfusions was motivated by a desire to obey God. He describes leaving the hospital in distress when "they were violating [our] little girl" with a transfusion. While it may seem peculiar or wrong to many, this is evidently a deeply held belief -- and the parents appear to be suffering because of it.

The difficulty is that the children are not of an age to choose their own beliefs. The courts in Canada have protected the constitutional rights of parents to rear children according to their religious beliefs. However, the extent of this right is not without limits.

In a similar case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in 1995, a majority of the Supreme Court concluded the right of parents to rear children according to religious beliefs, including that of choosing medical treatments, is fundamental to freedom of religion. They also said imposition of medical treatment was a justified breach of religious freedom.

These are cases in which the courts have held that a child's right to life trumps the parents' right to freedom of religion. One media commentator stated that since we do not live in a theocracy, this result is inevitable.

That is a superficial analysis which does not accord parents appropriate respect and toleration. It also undermines Canada's proud history of accommodating religious practices that seem odd or untenable to the majority.

There's a fine line between religious intolerance and appropriate accommodation. Herouxville has exhibited a level of intolerance by setting standards that appear to interfere with the need for appropriate religious accommodation.

Occasions do arise in which interfering with religious practices may be justified. If the surviving sextuplets required blood transfusions to save their lives, many would agree the parents' beliefs could not be accommodated. But even if this is the right conclusion, we must recognize these parents have had to deal with something horrific, which most of us will never have to grapple with: choosing between what you believe is obedience to God and life for your children.

Limits to religious accommodation should be made cautiously, remembering that respect for perspectives other than one's own is the cornerstone of religious freedom.

Kevin Boonstra is a partner in the law firm Kuhn & Company, in Vancouver and Abbotsford."

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

A respectful, but knowledgeable answer to the idea that anyone who takes blood is forever tainted and unable to become a JW. I have been a JW for 49 years, have known fellow Witnesses and myself been confronted with the blood issue. A few of my fellow witnesses had children forced by court order to have blood and NONE of them had this feeling conveyed by the comment. As Jehovah's people, we have a deep respect for all his laws, knowing as our Creator He has the best insight into our life choices. When we are forced to disobey Jehovah, there is a sadness, however also a contentment in having stood for our beliefs, and a deep concern and many prayers for those who do not understand. Thank you all for the opportunity to hear these many and diverse opinions.

The family and the government will be in court today to argue the case.

Parents of sextuplets fight blood transfusions in court

I can relate to the deep hurt the parents must experience in having their babies forced to have a transfusion. It is almost like a rape. Many of different religious faiths respect the sacredness of blood and do not accept to have a transfusion imposed on them or their loved ones. Personally I believe that no governing body should have the right to impose medical treatment without a court order and I wish the parents success in their proceedings.

Well, that's the crux of the argument. The government had a court order.

The argument is whether the judge awarded it properly.