What about the baby's rights??

by Gopher 6 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Gopher

  Does anyone have background information on this case? It says the parents weren't granted a fair hearing before their child was administered blood.

  But was the clock ticking and the transfusion urgently needed to save the baby? If so, then the doctors and child welfare authorities did a great job and need to be congratulated rather than scolded for their lifesaving action.

  http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040701.wjeho0701/BNStory/National

  Transfusion violated rights of Jehovah's Witness couple: ruling

  Canadian Press An Alberta judge has ruled a Jehovah's Witness couple's rights were violated when authorities forced their baby to have a blood transfusion. The baby was premature and suffered from an infection. The parents wanted antibiotics to be used, but doctors said a blood transfusion was necessary.The Court of Queen's Bench ruling overturns an a provincial court ruling three years ago.The new ruling says the parents should have been granted a fair hearing before child welfare authorities stepped in.
• 

  Lady Lee

  In many of these cases time IS of the essence. Far more important than getting a judge and lawyers to hear the case. Life of the child in my opinion is more important than a religious belief.
• 

  Gopher

  At least 3 years have passed. It appears that the child's medical treatment, although inharmonious with the beliefs of the parents' religion, was effective.
• 

  ohiocowboy

  It is a shame that the professionals in the Medical field seem to take the brunt for their actions in saving the life of a JW, or the child thereof. It would not surprise me that soon, very soon (tm), the medical profession will run in the opposite direction whenever they hear the name Jehovah's Witnesses, in order to save themselves from the horror of having to deal with all of the lawsuits that JW's bring upon them for trying to save their life.

  Also, maybe state will start taking the Children, and placing them with parents who love the child enough to save it's life, no matter what the cost........
• 

  heathen

  I think it's sick that these people can bring legal action against a reputable hospital or doctor because of some superstition that the WTBTS brainwashed them with . It makes no sense .
• 

  Aaron2

  This one is a hard one Gopher. I can see it from both sides. I find it very sad that the JW parents of a child would let their child die rather than administer to them some blood. But at the same time, there is an issue that I believe is more important and runs far deeper with me. I believe that we parents should have the right to make decisions for our children and not be pressured or forced into a decision by doctors or many others.

  There was a case not too long ago that many of you probably heard about. A young boy was diagnosed with Cancer. The doctors told the parents that his chances of survival were very very minimal. Even still, the doctors wanted to give it a shot and put the kid through chemotheropy. The parents decided since the chances of him surviving were so small, they wanted to keep him at home and try to make the last little bit of his life the best ever. The doctors however would not allow this, and got a court order turning custody over to the hospital and doctors. The parents then took off with their kid and the doctors called the police. A warrant was then issued for the arrest of the parents for kidnapping their own child.

  It's those types of things that scare me. To think that the government or anone could step in and take my child away from me is not right at all. I'm a good parent and want to raise my child the way I see fit, not the way others see fit.

  Aaron2
• 

  Scully

  Hi Gopher

  I'm kind of surprised at this ruling by the Alberta Court. There are precedents in Canadian law that basically state that a minor child's constitutional right to life (who does not have the capacity to make choices based on religious beliefs) supercedes his or her parents' freedom of religion rights.

  I believe that this case is being orchestrated by the WTS to effectively remove a minor child's right to life, and bolster religion-based parental decision-making, even when the child's life is being threatened by serious illness. Yet, in the case of Bethany Hughes, the WTS fought to allow her the right to decide on her own (despite undue and extremely biased religious influence which effectively removed her right to making informed decisions about her care) to refuse blood transfusions. These contrary positions on how minors are to be treated is simply a matter of CONTROL-MONGERING by the WTS.

  One of the purposes of laws is the protection of rights and freedoms of those who cannot advocate on their own behalf, and who, by no fault of their own are unable to exercise their constitutional rights under law. This ruling basically takes away the rights of children and places them at the mercy of their parents' unreasonable religious beliefs.

  Love, Scully