Apparently, if a JW's child is only at risk of brain damage, that's OK, as long they aren't in immediate danger of dying. Ya' just gotta love that WT lawyer, Shane Brady. He has no scruples with the real truth or with dead or brain-damaged babies, after all...he truly represents...in the most accurate way his clients and masters -- the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses.
| Saturday » March 1 » 2008 | ||
Decision to refuse transfusions not just over religion: Sextuplets' parents
A lawyer for the Jehovah's Witness parents of the four babies who survived the birth of sextuplets last year says the parents chose to refuse blood transfusions not just out of religious conviction. Shane Brady told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Donald Brenner that the parents opposed the transfusions because their religion forbids transfusions but insisted that they also considered the medical options available. "The parents were choosing within the range of medical practice. They were excercising reasonable and responsible decisions, religious convictions aside. "They're entitled to make that choice and every other parent is when choosing for their child when there is a credible, medical range of treatment to chose from." Brady argued that there were also risks such as infections associated with transfusions and said there was no medical emergency requiring the procedures when the babies were born in January 2007. He was making arguments during final submissions in court following cross-examination in January of several doctors who provided affidavits for the trial. Brady said there was a serious scientific debate about when transfusions should be made and argued that there was time for a judicial hearing to hear the parents arguments as to why they had refused the procedures, a move which prompted the government to seize the children in order to carry out the treatments. "None of the physicians allege there was a medical emergency and the children's vital signs at the time of the transfusions were within the acceptable range," he said. The legal test for when intervention is required is either the child's life is in danger or there is a risk of serious or permanent impairment. Justice Brenner noted that the issue of whether the babies were about to die was "not an issue" and the only issue is whether they faced impairment. Brady responded that though the director of child, family and community sservices of B.C. said there was a risk of "cognitive delay" or mental disability, there was in fact no such risk at the time of the transfusions. The parents are claiming that their rights were violated when the hospital went ahead with the transfusions. © The Vancouver Province 2008 | |||
 |
