This is astounding: Jehovahs Witnesses in Canada

[Twinkie1]

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???

My old piano teacher was a Christian Scientist. They aren't allowed medical treatment. She's still alive in her 90s actually.

My circumcism example is obviously a lesser thing that parents do to children without consent. Removing a little girl's clitoris which some communities do is a bit more major and should be illegal worldwide. Foot binding was another one. In the UK perhaps parents paying for teenage girls to have breast enlargement is another one where the state should step in.

Sparkly, wouldn't help a prem baby, though, they need extra blood, not their own recycled IYSWIM. Their bodies aren't able to cope unaided - lungs aren't fully mature so not enough oxygen in their bloodstream IIRC.

Very sad, hope these parents are like the ones mentioned who were happy the decision had been taken out of their hands. Although these babies aren't wards of court any longer, are they?

thats what I said, that the machine is for use in operations to prevent blood loss, not give extra blood.

SGK,

Presumably the blood transfusion was done at a time (at least a decade ago) now when screening on what you describe was not done.

Not saying you're wrong at all but are you fully correct in asserting that your DD cannot give blood in future because of BSE?.

Very well said Custy.

This is terribly sad. I really feel for the parents. I feel for everyone concerned actually.

I must have been hard for everyone involved but I'm sure it was all done to look after the babies best interests and there were no other alternatives.

"?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 " Does this mean JW's are vegatarians if they can't eat blood?

3andnomore there is a machine called a Cell Saver that many (although not all) Jehovah's Witnesses will use. My understanding of the machine is that it takes your own blood and cleans it during an operation, it pumps it out and back in, the blood isn't stored away from the body.

JW's aren't required to be vegetarian (although some are through lifestyle choice), but certainly would not eat unbled meat or foods such as black pudding.

yes not allowed black pudding.

eurgh anyway

yes I am sure She, along with thousands of people, since 1980, who have recieved blood are banned from donating blood. There is no test for BSE.

I'm not sure I find it weired that a JM will apply their beliefs to their child. Its not a decision I could ever contemplate taking- but then I am not a believer. If you are, you believe that by preventing tham having blood you are saving their chances of eternal life- as in, for ever instead of a the short sojourn here on this earth.

They really believe that: however strange it may seem to the rest of us, it is fact to them and although its hard to adjust to that mindset, it does need to be remeembered I think.

FWIW the feww JW I know rest easy knowing the Ward of Court thing is in place, and that their sdecisions re blood won't really happen, iyswim.

The directives of a faith are always hard to understand to non-believers. DH struggles to understand that christians (our Vicar believes in transubstantiation) take their children to Church to eat body and blood. OK that might not risk life, but nor does the JW thing as there are measures in palce.

Some information here regarding the blood issue.

I have a lovely friend who is a JW, and she has tryed to talk me in to going to meetings with her. (I am C of E.)
I respcet her belifes but have told her that i do not beleive that blood is wrong.
I am a blood doner, and i would recieve blood if needed.
Also i could not stand by and see someone i love die and refuse them the best treatment if blood was needed.
As well as DH1 and i both being blood doners the whole family are on the organ doner register.

The thing is to say a JW will stand by and watch someone die for the sake of a blood transfusion is a very emotive statement. Jehovah's Witnesses value life and will seek out the very best non-blood medical care possible. I found this quote which makes interesting reading in view of the newspaper article:-

"Dr. James A. Stockman III says: "With few exceptions, infants born prematurely will experience a decline in hemoglobin in the first one to three months . . . The indications for transfusion in the nursery setting are not well defined. Indeed, many infants seem to tolerate remarkably low levels of hemoglobin concentration with no apparent clinical difficulties." ?Pediatric Clinics of North America, February 1986."

I have watched the Canadian JW case from the start. The hospital reversed their decision because they had done what they needed to do (ie transfuse the babies) - but said that they would go to court again if any of the surviving babies needed any further transfusions. In most hospitals up to 90% of babies born this early (ie

Mrs spoon...now I do know that wiht a lot of things medical science is at best a guess...but with premeies after 2 died already, for whichever reason..is it worth to take that risk...and obvioulsy physcially this has not doen those BAbys any harm as the last 4 are surviving.
Coincidence, of course, possibly, but it could also be that those transfusions were what they needed!
I do agree, there should be more testing on what is actually normal in a newborn....it doesn't just reflect on transfusion but Vit K and Bloodsugars, too...however, obvioulsy and for good reasons this research isn't done, because noone wopuld be ahppy to let a healthy Baby go through any tests like this!

2andnomore, you may be right the blood transfusions may save these babies lives, however they might not.

Mrs Spoon, care of prem babies has come on in leaps and bounds since 1986, when the quote you posted was written. I doubt if he was writing about such young babies - few would have survived twenty years ago, I imagine.

It's not emotive to say JWs would rather see someone die than have a blood tranfusion, it's a merely factual description of their stance. Presumably they believe they are acting in the person's best interests for the afterlife.

Can I ask JWs on here, btw, why do they seek converts when (I think) they believe the numbers entering the Kingdom of Heaven are fixed - seem to recall a figure of 10,000?

Poor babies.

edam, it is an emotive statment because it makes it sound as if the only way someone could possibly survive is by having a blood transfusion and very often this is not the case. I know of a number of people who have gone through major surgery without blood, some of whom were told to expect not to survive the surgery as they had refused blood, and they have not only survived but made a quicker recovery than patients having similar operations but with blood transfusions.

I agree care of premature babies has come on leaps and bounds since 1986 but so has bloodless treatment and surgery. Not that I am claiming at all that these babies could be saved by some sort of bloodless treatment, however it is still the parents' right to refuse the treatment and the right of the Drs to take the matter to the Courts. Both parties fully believing they are doing what is best for the children involved.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a set number of 144,000 have a heavenly hope but also that the earth was made to be occupied and that in due time it will be restored to it's original state and "the meek will inherit the earth". More information here .

edam, 144 000 will enter the kingdom, but they belive armageddon will happen, and the rest will live on paradise earth.

sorry yes its CJD that has stopped DD1 ever being able to donate blood, blood that I didn't consent to.

Mrs Spoon, doctors generally only offer blood transfusions when they think they are needed. Bloodless treatment might be handy for people who object to transfusions but it just doesn't apply to prem babies - they have transfusions because they don't have enough blood. As sparkly said.

I'm prepared to believe the parents think they are acting in the best interestss of their children, as I mentioned below.

Ahh - religion = the root of all evil. A man's interpretation, who is by nature not infallible, used to hold power and authority over all others. The starter of every war.

So very very sad. I am sure that God, Allah, Jehovah, Budda, Ra and the rest would be weeping at what we do to each other in the name of 'religion'.

I'm sure and would never doubt that Drs do fully believe that they are offering the best treatment for their patients.

Totally agree with you Rumple. Jehovah's Witnesses do not go to war .