Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

News

This is astounding: Jehovahs Witnesses in Canada

114 replies

Twinkie1 · 23/02/2007 13:58

article

I find the above incredibly sad - those poor little babies - would those parents have stood by and watched them die for the sake of their religeon??

I can't believe anyone would not want to do everything in their power to keep their child alive???

OP posts:

Report

Tortington · 23/02/2007 14:03

a persons religeon is very important to them.

misdee · 23/02/2007 14:03

i detest this statement

'The babies? parents, still unnamed, it now emerged, were Jehovah?s Witnesses. Beyond evangelising, Jehovah?s Witnesses are commonly known for one other thing: their fervent opposition to blood transfusions. In their faith, it is nothing less than akin to rape'

often children of JW become wards of courts etc to allow them to have blood.

misdee · 23/02/2007 14:05

btw there are many things which can be used instead of blood in some situations.

Sparklygothkats dd1 was given blood without her consent, she didnt want her to have it.

Carmenere · 23/02/2007 14:08

Those children deserve the right to grow up to chose whether they want to be JW's or not.

MamazonAKAfatty · 23/02/2007 14:09

the parents right to religion is one thing...those children have not been givem a choice as to which parent theya re born to and within which faith.

I dont feel a child should be bound by the rules of a faith until they are 12/13.
they would at least be old enough to make an informed decision.
by all means take your child to your church/temple, teahc them the facts of your religion and encourage them to join in but i don't feel such boundaries (like the anti- blood transfusion, circumcision etc) should be placed upon children.

3andnomore · 23/02/2007 14:12

Oh this is always difficult, not just with children, also, when adults refused to be treated and you know the reatment could mean that they live rather then die (have had some encounters of this whilest Nursing in Germany)....but I suppose if it is adults they usually make the decision themselfs about their own body!
It isn't unusual that the courts intervene when it is about children...and rightly so, a childs right of life and asftey has got to be paramount!
What a weird interpretation of this "?And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people? Leviticus 17:10 " though...surely this was written in light of possible drinking of blood in some cutlures, etc...or maybe even eating raw meat or something, surely ingesting blood isn't quite the same at all to having a blood transfusion?

SparklyGothKat · 23/02/2007 14:17

Hospital do have the right to make children a ward of court, it takes hardly any time, and they can do this to JW's children. The religion is very important to JWs.
I didn't want my children to have blood, not for regilious reasons but because the AIDs, infections and other things. The hosiptal gave my dd1, while in SCBU, blood without my knowledge or consent, I only found out about it the next day and before anyone says it must have been an emergancy, the hospital ordered the blood at 5pm, I phoned at 11pm and wasn't told, the blood was given at 1am. When I found out I was upset and thats when I found out that the hospital actually don't need your consent. As a result my dd1 can not donate blood in the future because of BSE

Tortington · 23/02/2007 15:00

its funny that the arguments you are presenting are much the same arguments the traditional christian church has for abortion - childs rights etc.

quietmouse · 23/02/2007 15:21

I read this and was shocked. I can not understand how parents could let their children die in the name of religion.

I don't believe it's the same as abortion. These babies were live human beings, with a right to life. They didn't chose to be born to JW.

3andnomore · 23/02/2007 15:31

custardo..I do not think that a fetus has the same rights as a Baby that has been born. In my personal opinion (without hopefully getting drawn in the abortion debate right now) the pregnant woman is paramount over the fetus, but once a child is born it has the right of protection...no idea if that amkes sense!

DeviousDaffodil · 23/02/2007 15:34

I cannot understand how any parent can put their religious beliefs over th rright of their childs.
Sparkly was your objection that your daughter had the blood, or that you were not informed about it?

SparklyGothKat · 23/02/2007 15:57

more that I had not be informed. DH said that he would have agreed anyway, and I think I would have too.

Being brought up as a JW, the blood issue was always on my mind, even though I don't do religion anymore. But now my kids are older and I am older I would allow them to have a blood transfusion because I couldn't bear to lose them.

DeviousDaffodil · 23/02/2007 16:01

Agree I would want to give my consent in that situation.
I is a big decicion to make.

Judy1234 · 23/02/2007 16:16

They were offered selective abortion and refused. That is another issue again. That alone would have helped lead to 2 of the babies dying who died but that is for most of us probably a more understandable decision. How to pick which of your children live etc.

I don't think parents should even circumcise boys for religious reasons as they can't consent.

3andnomore · 23/02/2007 16:21

for a change I agree with you Xenia

Judy1234 · 23/02/2007 16:26

Basically I don't think we have a right to kill or maim our children and that comes above religious belief and what's that bit in the bible on about anyway? I'm sure God couldn't care less what we eat or drink.

I suppose I agree we should be allowed to expose our children to some elements of risk though and that different parents take different views on what is fine and what isn't in terms of dangerous sports, walking home alone etc.

DeviousDaffodil · 23/02/2007 16:38

I do not subscribe to any religion, but if there is a God, I cannot see fow he would let innocent babies die if ther was a chance of saving them.

All life is precious, and we should be grateful that we have the medicine and science to save lives.

MrsSpoon · 23/02/2007 18:14

I saw this today and thought this quote was notable:- "Representatives of the Jehovah?s Witnesses have urged the public and media not to make ?stereotypical assumptions? about their faith based on the case."

Yes Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, in many cases there are non-blood alternatives. Sometimes children are made a ward of Court and my understanding is that the non-hysterical line should be taken, the matter is out of the parents' hands.

Also wanted to ask where does it say in the article that the two babies who died have died through lack of a blood transfusion? They were born three months early (difficult enough for a singleton), weighed less than 2lbs each and measured less than an adult stretched out hand, many challenges.

I feel very sad for the parents.

3andnomore · 23/02/2007 18:27

people may have misunderstood that bit, as it was referring "yet again the parent refused", but I think it wasn't that they refused a previous offer of bloodtransfusion, but the reduction of pg!

OnaBreak · 23/02/2007 18:37

Was there not machine made (being made)for JW,which cleansed the blood first?

Or did I dream that?

Califrau · 23/02/2007 18:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LaDiDaDi · 23/02/2007 18:54

At work I have met parents who refused their daughter permission to have a life saving treatment as it required her to have donated bllod. They were JW's and once they made their decision the little girl was made a ward of court so that she could have the treatment. Once the parents were not responsible for the decision they were absolutely fine with her having the treatment. They were a very loving couple and happily their dd made a full recovery.

SparklyGothKat · 23/02/2007 18:56

i believe that there is a machine that pumps the blood out of the body so that no blood is lost, therefore not needing a blood transfusion, but that can only be used in operations.

paulaplumpbottom · 23/02/2007 19:05

I can't imagine not doing everything in my power as a parent to make sure my child lived. How very sad.

Not everyone has circumcision for religious reasons.

3andnomore · 23/02/2007 19:07

Sparkly, I think the machine you mean is something that would be used in open heart surgery, to basically bypass the heart whilest it is operated on.
Then there is dialysis, which, in effect does clean the blood, but the blood is "cleaned" from things that wouldn't be usually in it, but is due to Kidneyprobs/failure...but I don't think that would make a difference to JW...can't say I have heard of a machine invented to enable JW's to be able to accept bloodproducts...as I don't think it is a impurity factor that their believe is based about, but rather the pagan kind ritualistic blood ingestion...but of course I could be completely on the wrong track here!

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.