Controversy Behind Jehovah Witnesses Beliefs
By cnickel
@cnickel (8)
Canada
March 3, 2007 9:28am CST
Not sure if you're familiar with this, but about a month ago, there were a set of sextuplets that were born in BC. 2 of them died shortly after while 4 of them were struggling to survive. The doctors wanted to give these 4 babies blood transfusions but the parents refused because they were Jehovah Witnesses and did not believe in blood transfusions. The government stepped in and took the children temporary away from the parents and gave the babies transfusions against the parents' wills. Later, the parents took the government to court and the decision was overturned. By then it was too late.
My question is this: Do you think it was right for the government to do this? Is freedom of religion only okay when it's convenient?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@starr4all (2863)
•
3 Mar 07
Yes the govt should have! I'm still in shock that parents would rather let their children die than seek medical attention! The children should be taken away and permanently taken away. they would have let those babies die. This is part of a reason I don't agree with some religions.
@cnickel (8)
• Canada
4 Mar 07
Well, the story is that the parents didn't want the children to die. They wanted to seek alternative treatments but the doctors didn't discuss any options with them prior to asking the government to step in on this situation. There were other alternatives, they just didn't bother to discuss it because they thought the parents to refuse all medical treatments. But in reality, the parents only refused blood transfusions.
So in Canada (or in North American in general), freedom of religion doesn't actually exist then?
@beenice2 (2967)
• Sackville, New Brunswick
28 Dec 16
The government is in to much of our lives. But this idea of not allowing blood transfusion is founded on what, I don't know, unless the blood has aids in it then I would say to not do it, but if it going to save the life of the babies or whoever needs it, well I don't see what is the problem.
@GergOnline (399)
• United States
15 May 07
im glad that the govrnment did that. and those kids will be thqanking them once they get older and they understand what happened.
@MarkyB21 (1545)
•
3 Mar 07
That's a very difficult one. I certainly believe that the children needed to be treated but taking someone's children away to treat them against their strong beliefs is a bit questionable.
Overall, I would say it was the right thing to do but it's a shame there was a conflict between belief and medical need.
@tchalla (19)
• United States
8 Jul 09
thats a very touchy one. I believe that if the parents are Witnesses then they should not have blood transfusions. But the children are not. They may be when they get older but until then they should live long enough to make that decision. You cannot put your religion on your child when its something that important. Make them go to church and read the Bible. But letting them die for your beliefs i don't think thats right
