Sextuplets born to Jehovah's Witness parents

[vison]

Sextuplets were born last weekend in Vancouver, BC, to Jehovah's Witness parents.

Sextuplets

Premature babies need blood transfusions and the ruckus is about to begin.

Should these parents be allowed to say No to the treatment that might save these little lives?

[truehobbit]

They article doesn't say they will need blood transfusion. Maybe they won't?

I wonder whether there was any fertility treatment involved.

[vison]

According to the doctor interviewed this morning, Yes, they need blood transfusions. The article I linked to is not the latest, but it was the latest I could find on the internet. The doctor explained WHY premature babies need blood transfusions, but I didn't hear all of it.

Here is a link: Premature babies sometimes need blood


Yes, fertility treatments were involved. These sextuplets were not a result of in vitro fertilization, but of increased (? wrong word) ovulation.

[Faramond]

Fertility treatments allowed, but blood transfusions not? I wonder what the underlying principle being followed is.

Will the government step in and make them do transfusions?

[Impenitent]

The underlying principle is that according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, blood is the very essence and stuff of life and one does not donate blood, nor accept transfusions of another's blood - I think, but am not sure, that owner-transfusions are okay but I'm not sure about that.

My aunt is a Jehovah's Witness, and she refused transfusions even though she was bleeding to death. Miraculous but very, very slow recovery eventuated.

[nerdanel]

I feel very strongly that infants, once fully delivered, are human beings with all attached rights, including a fundamental moral right to all medical care needed to stay alive. As independent beings, they have this right (IMO, of course) irrespective of the belief system of their parents. Phrased differently, I do not think that parents should be permitted to block their minor children from receiving vital medical care on the basis of the parents' religious beliefs. Only those of legal age to give informed consent should be permitted to forego medical care necessary to stay alive, and only on their own behalf (the issue of terminally ill adults who entrust others with medical power-of-attorney to safeguard their "right to die" is of course a different matter implicating a separate set of ethical issues.)

I am fully supportive of each adult's right to choose the belief system to which they subscribe and to make choices accordingly. This includes a Jehovah's Witness' right to forego blood transfusions based on a belief that blood is sacred and not for human "consumption." It includes a Christian Scientist's right to forego all medical treatment based on a belief in supernatural intervention if it is God's will that the patient survive. However, I cease to support these individuals' religious beliefs where they fundamentally conflict with another human's right to life and physical health. And it is so when they force their minor children to forego necessary medical treatment.

[truehobbit]

Imp, thanks, I'd forgotten about that (though I'd heard of it) - my thoughts were like Faramonds, in that it struck me as strange that fertility treatment would be allowed for them, as that's obviously interfering with nature or fate or whatever as well. (And I'd thought the blood transfusion problem had to do with such interference).

[Impenitent]

Nel, I'm with you there. Once born, children have independent rights and their parents/guardians do not have the right of life or death over them.

I would say in this case, however, the parents would say that they have faith that God will intervene and save their children - or, not do so if a child's time had come; that they are not making the choice of life or death but leaving it in God's hands (I disagree - but then, my aunt refused a transfusion for herself, knowing that death was certain - yet she did not die.)

But extend that to vaccinations - should infants be vaccinated against their parents wishes? Vaccinations can save a life in some cases; and yet infants die in consequence of vaccinations too (rare, but it occurs; or suffer irreparable physical damage). Do you think that this is vital medical care that parents should not be permitted to refuse? Is it a case of degree?

When a particular disease is in plague proportions - such as small pox for example - can one refuse vaccination for one's child? I have acquaintances who did not vaccinate their children, arguing that the vaccination rates in Australia are so high, and the incidence of these childhood diseases consequently so low, that their children were adequately protected by societal inhibitors. But if every parent was to make that choice, the incidence of these childhood diseases and consequent deaths would rise.

And yet we allow parents that choice even though death may result (possibly to a child not their own).

[Primula Baggins]

The American Academy of Pediatrics has published papers that don't admit a parental right to consent to treatment for a minor child—the parent can give permission to treat, but permission is not necessary if the condition is life-threatening. This kind of thing happens fairly often in the emergency room, where a child comes in with no parent attached. Doctors don't wait to track a parent down before they start treating the child; they'd be negligent if they did wait.

As I understand it, the parent doesn't in fact have the right to refuse life-saving treatment for a child; only a competent person can refuse consent to treatment and only for themselves (though they can do so through preparing an advance directive that will be applied when they're no longer competent, or through granting a medical power of attorney—neither of which a child can do).

This is all filtered through the metric ton of nursing textbooks I've edited in the past couple of years.

[Frelga]

Impish, I think vaccination is a fundamentally different issue. Obviously, parents have to make many choices that profoundly affect their children's lives, and many of those choices will be made on the basis of the parent's religious beliefs. And some of those choices, though made in love, will have disastrous consequences.

However. It's one thing to say, I have weighed pros and cons of vaccination and I believe that it is safer for my child not to have it. I have postponed or declined certain vaccinations for Lufu based on the best information I could find on their safety vs. risks of not vaccinating, and in THREE cases the vaccine was recalled literally weeks after I chose not to give it. (FTR, he is caught up on all vaccinations now) And once one does that, of course one relies on chance, luck, or the mercy of God that the choice turns out to be the right one.

In this case, it sounds like the denial of treatment will result in death barring Lord's own miracle, and that is the point at which religious believes must take back seat to survival.

However, I cease to support these individuals' religious beliefs where they fundamentally conflict with another human's right to life and physical health. And it is so when they force their minor children to forego necessary medical treatment.

I agree entirely. Of course, that's a fundamentally Jewish worldview - any religiuos prohibition may and should be broken for the sake of saving a life. So is it fair of us to hold others to this standard when their own may be drastically different?

* thinks *

I would say yes, based on the same principles you outlined in your post. A person has a right to die for their beliefs, but they have no right to cause a death of another person, who has not expressly chosen to do so.

[The Watcher]

My great uncle, raised and throughout his own lifetime a practicing Unitarian, married a Christian Scientist. I do not know how they arrived at their common decision, but it was along the lines of "any kids that we bring into the world will NOT be subject to CS doctrine if their own health is involved." They had four daughters, my mother's cousins, and all of those women are alive and well today. Aunt Gladys herself developed one of those aging related diseases where her own blood would not clot, and her wishes were honored in that no life saving transfusions of blood were given to her...and she did eventually die from that tragic development.

I wish more people could be like my great uncle and his wife....what one applies to oneself is not ALWAYS a mandate to apply to others, even one's own children.

[Lurker]

Eventhough I do agree with Nel, I still respect the right of the parent to forego blood transfusion. Isn't it a fact that minor children still seek parental consent on almost everything they do? Yes, the baby is an individual but unfortunately that individual is incapable to decide for himself. Thus, in my opinion, since he was born to JW parents, I think he would have followed their beliefs until he is capable of thinking on his own. Plus the fact, let's say he has undergone blood transfusion, you'll never know if the baby is going to be happy about it or not. Psychologically. if he decides to follow the JW faith he will be scared for life as the "unpure" one.

[Primula Baggins]

That still, for my money, beats being dead.

What disturbs me about saying parents can refuse treatment for their children is that they are being allowed to do harm, perhaps fatal harm, to their children for religious reasons. Is that really so different from insisting on a religious right to beat their children? What about female circumcision?

I think a living child's right to continue living supersedes a parent's right to be religiously comfortable.

[Lurker]

What disturbs me about saying parents can refuse treatment for their children is that they are being allowed to do harm, perhaps fatal harm, to their children for religious reasons. Is that really so different from insisting on a religious right to beat their children? What about female circumcision?

I think a living child's right to continue living supersedes a parent's right to be religiously comfortable.

I know what you mean but beating a child up and female circumcision is child abuse very different from foregoing blood transfusion. Foregoing blood transfusion to a baby is similar to a parent pulling the plug on a child who is in a coma. Both have individual rights, yet they can't decide for themselves because of the state they are in. Plus the fact, in both cases you wouldn't know whether or not that treatment will indeed save the life of that person. (Reminds me of the "tainted blood" scandal here.)

I subscribe to the Watchtower/Awake (JW free publication) and it is explained there both spiritually and medically why they refuse blood transfusion. I'll try to look for the article. IMHO, it's not just for religious reasons, it's like the vaccine example, if those parents can refuse their kids having the shot (which can prevent a child getting small pox, etc.), then it is the right of JW parents to refuse blood transfusion.

[Primula Baggins]

Except that when the "plug is pulled" it is because there is no hope. It's not for convenience or even conscience on anyone's part; it's because there is no treatment that is going to restore that person to health or even awareness. My husband went through this several years ago with his mother after her cardiac arrest. He sat with her while the life support was removed, because his father couldn't bear to. I can guarantee you that it was not done for any reason but that there was no longer any hope: she had, in every way but that her body was supported by machines, already died. Her mind was gone forever and beyond repair.

She also had a carefully drawn-up living will that spelled out her wishes quite clearly. I think my husband and his father would have chosen to withdraw life support, but she had already made the decision.

A baby who can live out a normal life with a blood transfusion is not at all the same kind of question. Refusing that is not refusing indignity and pointless expense. It is refusing life. For someone else. Not even a parent has the right to do that.

[JewelSong]

Foregoing blood transfusion to a baby is similar to a parent pulling the plug on a child who is in a coma.

I don't think they are similar in the least. But Prim said it already.

[MithLuin]

I don't think this issue should be isolated from the greater picture of medical ethics.

Patients do have a right to refuse treatment, even treatment that can save their lives. You can sign a DNR for yourself, or someone you have custody or power of attorney over. It is the responsibility of the medical professionals to inform patients appropriately of what would be involved in a particular treatment, and the risks, so that they can make an informed decision.

I would not refuse a blood transfusion, but then, I've never needed one. My Mom had one, and I think she wanted to refuse it (though she was in no state to). She says the last thing she remembered the doctor saying was, "don't worry, you can't get AIDS from this." (It was 1988)

I would refuse a morning after pill if I were raped. I know that at the time, I'd be too upset to think of such things, so it was something I worked out for myself in advance, and discussed with my sister, who is a nurse (she is the one with power to make medical decisions for my parents, if they are incapacitated). I have no moral qualms about trying to prevent a pregnancy caused in such a way, but I would not take an abortifacient.
Not that that situation is life-threatening. Hopefully, I'll never have to worry about it.

But what it really comes down to is, who's in charge? The doctors or the patient? The doctors need to make a best effort to save the life of the patient, and sometimes that involves doing things without asking for permission first. Especially in an emergency. But treatment cannot be 'foisted' on someone who refuses it. Sometimes, you ignore the wishes of the patient. No one wants to have a limb amputated, but then, no one wants to deal with gangrene either. But I would hope that no one would just amputate without discussing first. No one would withhold life-saving treatment, either.

A baby cannot make a medical decision for himself. So, who gets to decide? The doctors? Or the parents? I really think that it is the parents who have final say, not the doctors. But that the parents and the doctors should certainly be in dialogue over the whole thing! And that any parent would/should think twice before consigning their own child to death

There was a case of a boy refusing treatment for cancer, because he really didn't like chemo and instead wanted to try some herbal remedy he found online. The doctors wanted to get a judge to order the boy to receive his treatment, but I don't know whatever came of that one. I cannot remember his age, but I'm fairly certain he was under 18, and his parents supported his decision. IIRC.

Basically, the fact that the motivation behind the decision (in this case) is religious is not pertinent to the question of who gets to make the decision, at the end of the day. Few people would want to be in the position of having a child in need of life-saving treatments in the first place.

Having sextuplets is an unusual situation. I do not think it ever happens naturally (though I could be wrong). So, if the mother was on fertility drugs, surely the parents knew this was a possible outcome. I hope they had time to prepare to know what to do. And I hope that the little babies are doing well - without anything controversial going on, it is often difficult for premies to make it. They are a few weeks old now - any updates?

[vison]

No updates. The family remains silent, and the hospital says nothing. I haven't heard a word.

Mind you, our local media (and hundreds of reporters from all around the world ) is caught up in a murder case where the accused is suspected of murdering more than 50 women. Subject for another thread.

[vison]

Update: two of the babies have died. The Ministry for Children "seized" the surviving babies and they had blood transfusions and were then returned to the custody of the parents. Now there is more legal wrangling, the Ministry will intervene again if necessary. The parents are saying their consitutional rights were violated. They say they love their babies and want only the best for them. They quote scripture.

This is beyond me, I confess. First, the parents got these babies by use of what can only be called incredible modern technology. They refused to abort any of the foetuses, which is understandable. But they were asked if, when the babies were born, they should be "resuscitated" as babies this premature do not often start breathing on their own. Yes, they said, they wanted the babies resuscitated. Here's where I get -- well, here's where I get angry about it all. (I admit it's none of my business and I have no business getting angry about what someone else does under these circumstances.) Premature babies usually need blood. They will die without it. They have a terrible struggle to survive, and these people want to deny them the most important medical care! If the babies were unable to breathe, "born dead" in other words, they wanted them revived.

These people went to extraordinary lengths to have these babies. They were not opposed to using the most invasive, extreme methods of creating these babies. They are willing to carry on with the pregnancy KNOWING that these babies are going to need extraordinary care, maybe for years and years, that these babies might be physically and mentally handicapped, etc., etc., and then, in their hidebound insistence on following some obscure biblical injunction written down thousands of years ago, they refuse the most important aspect of trying to help these poor little things.

If I was the judge hearing the latest application, I would say the parents have no right to deny their children this life-saving treatment. I am appalled that people who would go to such lengths to have children, probably violating some other obscure biblical injunction, are willing to let their children suffer and die. As a mother, I can say that there are few things I wouldn't do if it meant the survival and health of my children. Very bloody few.

[Maria]

I wonder why the parents didn't do transfusions from themselves? Would that have been OK?