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
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."