There’s a discussion about this on Free Dominion.

My hunch is, most pro-lifers would side with saving the babies. I know I do.

I understand there is a blood substitute that could be acceptable for transfusion.

I understand these babies were the product of IVF. Isn’t IVF against JW beliefs? Normally, it’s not considered terribly social conservative to do IVF because of the possibility of killing embryos.

It just seems a little odd that they’re willing to risk IVF, but not willing to save the babies.

Most pro-lifers have a “natural law” approach to such matters– explicitly or implicitly. Religious belief may only be respected insofar as it does not violate the natural law.

From the non-religious right-to-life perspective, the issues of abortion and medical non-intervention are, respectively, issues of commission and omission. Abortion centres on whether one person has the power to act against another’s interest. Medical non-intervention centres on whether one person has a duty to act in another’s interest. IOW, the distinction is between “power over” and “duty to”.

As a premise, parents have an inherent duty to care for their children (to act in the child’s interests and to not fail to act in the child’s interests). It is self-evident that a child is not fully capable of defending all of its own interests.

The point of freedom of belief is that it is yours, not someone else’s imposed or assumed. It is self-evident that a child is not fully developed as a moral agent. But does that mean parents have the power to impose beliefs which might harm a child, or merely to impose beliefs which tend to safeguard the child and prevent the child from harming others?

I consider it axiomatic that inherent rights must be reciprocally respected (ie. harm is impermissible). I further consider that inherent freedoms of conscience are absolutely hierarchically subordinate to the inherent right to life.

So, a parent does not have the moral power to impose a belief which would reasonably be expected to infringe an inherent right of the child - in this case, the pre-eminent inherent right - to life.

I might not have phrased the argument in the strongest possible terms (ie. bulletproof), but I expect the reader can follow the substance.

Yes. But the irreligious argument provides a critically important baseline, and I believe it is important that the argument be made and understood rather than the conclusion merely assumed. If an irreligious argument can be made that upholds a parent’s right to withhold care, then the religious viewpoint is just window dressing.

A religious pro-lifer shouldn’t take issue if he recognizes the active/passive divide.

In this particular case, it is possible that all sides can maintain their ethical positions: the parents object on religious grounds and try to decline medical care, meeting their obligations to their Lord and their eternal souls; the state intervenes on compassionate grounds to save life and limb of one who is incompetent to do so for himself; the infant is morally blameless for the intentions, decisions, and actions of others and I would think it a real stretch to find a religious interpretation which holds the infant responsible in the hereafter for the crime of having received a transfusion.

A parent obeys what they deeply and sincerely believe to be God’s will, and a child moves from a short and largely oblivious life to eternal comfort in the Lord. How can a pro-lifer take issue with that?

Because we have a responsibility to preserve innocent human life on earth.

Think of the consequences of allowing people to die on the premise they will enter eternal life: we wouldn’t treat people in hospitals.

Life is an intrinsic good. We are support to preserve it and nourish it.

God has every right to take lives. He has the right to ask people to take life for him. He owns all of us. We’re his creation.

So in following God’s orders, Abraham did the right thing, and showed a lot of faith.

But if anyone else had made that command, it would be wrong.

“So in following God’s orders, Abraham did the right thing, and showed a lot of faith.”

So if God has decreed that no Jehovah’s Witness shall receive a blood transfusion…?

I can’t think of too many Gods that haven’t, at one time or another, demanded that adherents take the lives of others, with Their blessing.

In this case, lrC and SUZANNE (an odd couple indeed) are suggesting that the parents passively allow a procedure forbidden by God (in their eyes) to be inflicted on their child, then they somehow avoid culpability. That seems to me to be an evasion: if God has forbidden transfusions, it seems to be the duty of a devout parent to do all in their power to prevent them. I would abhore that decision, but it seems to me the only moral option: as SUZANNE points out, God’s orders must be followed, even at the cost of a child’s life. No?

>passively allow a procedure forbidden by God (in their eyes) to be inflicted on their child,

Suzanne might. I don’t. When I wrote, “parents try to decline medical care”, I meant that they put some effort into it. Standing aside with fingers crossed while saying, “Please don’t transfuse my baby” would not be trying very hard.

Jon Krakauer, best known for “Into Thin Air”, wrote a book about a string of murders in Utah, committed by a Mormon who was quite sure he was acting on the will of God. The most interesting issue raised by the case, for me, was the problem of religions in which God is supposed to speak directly through a personal relationship with his followers. In Catholicism, the “true” meaning of God’s teachings is mediated to some degree by the interpretation of the Vatican and clergy; but in most Protestant faiths (correct me if I’m wrong here) the individual remains the ultimate human spiritual authority. And if God tells you to kill your older wife so you can pursue a relationship with a younger woman (as He obligingly did in the case above), how can you in good faith refuse Him?

So if God has decreed that no Jehovah’s Witness shall receive a blood transfusion…?

If he had, then no, they shouldn’t. But as God made Life to be a intrinisic good, he normally wouldn’t do something like that.

To Ian

Suzanne, I have just received a revelation from God. He has told me to take your life.

I don’t believe in private revelations that transgress the natural law. Therefore I believe you are wrong.

From my perspective (faithful vs religious, prochoice), God gave us the brains to figure out ways to prevent or cure various & sundry illnesses, ergo God is OK with blood transfusions, etc.

Hello, I’ve just come upon your conversation, and though I haven’t read all of the posts, I am very familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood beliefs, having family members who are Witnesses. I think we could theorize, philosiphize and theocracize until we are blue in the face, and be not much further ahead. I will tell you this. JW’s have about 10 blood derivatives that they often will accept that the BC hospital didn’t have the expertise to use. And that’s because of powerful lobbying of the blood services industry that doesn’t make money from these alternative treatments. You know, blood transfusions were pioneered, how many centuries ago? If the rest of modern medicine kept the same pace, our life span average would still be 40.

I would actually like to focus on an aspect of the subject that I am surprised no media has picked up on despite the ad nauseum coverage. Here we have two obstinate forces - parents with a deep religious conviction and the blood services industry. We accept that the pharmacuetical industry is a big business and influencer of health services because we fork out big bucks for medicine. We know the organ and tissue industry is big business because we’ve seen the media stories about unscrupulous companies digging tissue and bones out of cadavers with the assistance of funeral home employees, and gaining big profits for their sale. But we give blood in exchange for juice and a cookie, feel good about “giving life”, and walk away in ignorace of how much money our blood is generating for the blood services industry, which is a powerful lobby group in hospitals.

Have you noticed that though Jehovah’s Witnesses have a whole department of medical experts trained in blood alternatives, and have pioneered “bloodless surgery” that no media has bothered to interview any other hospitals using these alternative methods? They’ve been satisfied to interview Blood Services Canada reps, who make money from supplying hospitals with blood and the BC hospital staff and PR reps themselves. Apparently, some hospitals have saved preemies with blood alternatives despite the statements from the BC hospital that say it can’t be done. I think that at this point the hospital is going into PR overdrive to absolve themselves from blame in the preemies death. Apparently, they could have taken smaller amounts of blood for tests, saving the preemies from the need for blood. Perhaps there were other mistakes, like not calling in other experts who would have proceeded with blood products the parents would have accepted. Of course, just sticking straight blood into veins is easier and keeps their blood suppliers happy. But it’s archaic.

I think it’s high time that the media exposed the arrogance of doctors in thinking that their way is the only way even when a baby’s life is at risk, when another expert at another hospital might have a better way. And I think it’s high time the media exposed the big bucks and lobbying of the blood services industry to keep blood flowing out of and into our veins - it’s an old technology, and we deserve to have modern advances made more widely available to all of us.

Hello Chimera, good to meet you. I don’t know the couple, but I know something about the Jehovah’s Witness organization, some of the people, and a thing or two about human nature. I’ll venture a guess in response to your question, but my guess might be worth squat.

The JW organization funds research, blood alternative training for medical professionals (though not on the scale that the blood industry does) and hospital liason committees, but rarely do they pay for members expenses to seek treatment at hospitals further away from where they live. And when they do its’ not usually not until a life or death situation is occurring. I think this is a mistake. Perhaps the husband needed to keep working while his wife was in the hospital in the weeks previous to her delivery. Perhaps the hospital gave assurances that they would respect the couples’ right to seek alternative treatment elsewhere should the issue of blood arise, but the hospital staff was disingenuous or a new hostile doctor intervened.

Few of us properly prepare for the worst. The Red Cross and the government have warned us repeatedly to have “disaster kits” ready in the home with at least a weeks worth of water and non-perishable food. How many of us do, even if we have kids? But I digress. I think your question deserves a sharp reporter to investigate more of the circumstances. Did they actually pick out a hospital to go to once the wife delivered, were assured the hospital wouldn’t intervene, then were blocked once the babies were born? I think it’s strange that in this case the parents are scrutinized, and the blood industry and their influence over hospitals are not even questioned, while a litre of blood sells for over $100. Compare that to a litre of gas around a dollar, and one wonders why the industry isn’t regulated, when transfusions of blood and blood derivatives from multiple sources carries a not insignificant risk of transmitting disease. A blood born disease is the last thing those babies needed, and I think the question needs to be asked, did the hospital do everything they could to help the couple to get access to expertise even if that meant releasing them from that particular hospital’s care, or were they not willing to let other medical experts step in and save the day?

“Blood derivatives” is another industry word that you’ll find more info with -
http://www.viktorszabados.com/kamada/english/03products_main.htm

http://www.bloodbook.com/#TOP
I don’t know who the authors of the site are, but they provide sources for their statements, or even quote directly from feature newspaper articles, and FDA reports.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm
It’s a shame that the general public isn’t given info about the pioneering medicine that JW’s have helped to develop - they don’t give out info to the general public on a wide basis because they don’t get gov’t funding and members pay for literature printed.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/157/6/778.pdf
“Canadian Blood Bank Corporation” Took over the blood industry in Canada from the Red Cross after the Krever inquiry. Folded in 1998 after a government investigation that uncovered executive mismanagement of money.

http://www.bloodservices.ca/centreapps/internet/uw_v502_mainengine.nsf/page/HospitalCustomerServiceInitiative “Canadian Blood Services Agency”. Has a strong strategic partnership with hospitals. This means providing millions of dollars of funding for hospitals and medical professionals that agree to research areas of medicine that will result in using more blood. For example, funding a Canadian Research Chair in Transfusion Medicine. http://www.chairs.gc.ca/web/chairholders/viewprofile_e.asp?id=129&UniversityID=&SubjectID=&DisciplineID=&Researcher=&Keyword=
It is great to study how to minimize the transmission of diseases from transfused blood, but would the Canadian Blood Services Agency ever fund research that found a completely different alternative to blood or blood derivatives? I think not.