how much freedom of religion is correct?
This is where I always have a problem. Religion is a personal thing, but at what age do you take your religious beliefs onto that of your children? The law usually states that children under the age of 16 are the wards of the parents and the parents have legal say on what does and does not happen to the individual. In the event that the choice might hurt the child, then the state can say whether or not it happens. But what parent, in their right mind, would possibly say "I dont consent to this cause it goes against my religious beliefs" and then watch their child die and still have the right to stand up and say "I am a good parent"? Shouldnt religion and personal belief take a back seat to the love and care of your child? I know that in Catholic religion, God ordered Abraham (at least I think it was Abraham, could have been a few cause I am bad with names but good with details) to take his son up to the top of a mountain and then kill him to prove his love for God. Luckily at the last second, an angel came and stopped the killing blow and said "gotcha..God was just messing with your mind, but you did a good thing showing your belief in him".
This was one story that always had me set a little off ease with the Cathlolic religion. How can you worship a deity that would say 'kill your own blood to prove your love for me'? just cause God supposedly (in the book) had his own son killed by Romans to prove his love for mankind, are we to expect to do that on a regular basis?
Personally, when it comes to something like this, I would say that the law has every right to step in and do whatever they possibly can to ensure the safety and lives of those in society. A doctor has been to medical school, knows what can and can not happen to a person if a surgery or other procedure is done and therefore should have a say on what can and should be done. We are not talking about a TV set here taken in to FutureShop and given to the repairman and the repairman saying "the picture tube is going, I can put in a new transitor to make it last another 30 years" and then the person going "sorry, transistors are against my religion" and then throwing the dead TV away. We are talking about a living, breathing human being that you are given by either nature or the grace of the deity of your choice to protect and ensure their safety. Put you own personal religious beliefs at the side of the road and do what it takes to save that little persons life. If you have a problem with that, or your religious beliefs might stop that from happening, do that little life a favour, and the rest of the world, and stop reproducing. Babies are a gift, a treasure and a miracle given to you for a brief moment, don't fuck it up!
****
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070131/sextups_seized_070201/20070201?hub=Canada
Sextuplets' parents want apology for transfusions
Updated Thu. Feb. 1 2007 8:47 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A B.C. Jehovah's Witness couple will demand an apology from the province over its decision to allow three of their four surviving sextuplets to have blood transfusions -- a practice that goes against their religion.
The infants were born prematurely, and two of them have already died.
One of the children was given a transfusion on Wednesday, while the other two were transfused earlier.
"The next thing is they'll be in court likely in February and they'll challenge the government and ask the courts to freeze the government's ability to have these children removed for further blood transfusions," said CTV's Vancouver Bureau Chief Todd Battis.
"And also they'll be asking for an apology from the government. And what they're really upset about is that they didn't get the chance to intervene with the judge on their behalf."
Their lawyer, Shane Brady, said Wednesday the family is upset that the transfusions were done against their wishes. In an affidavit, the parents said they "could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl. We took our immense sadness and grief and tried to console each other in private."
"We want the best medical care for our children and want them to live. We have consented to all required treatment. We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions," they said in the court documents.
Brady appeared in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday to challenge the seizure order, which was implemented Friday without a court hearing. But the province abruptly handed control of the children back to the parents when they challenged the order.
However, the parents plan to press on and a court date has been set for Feb. 22 and 23 to hear them.
Supreme Court of Canada decisions from 1995 and 1999 gave parents the right to present evidence at any seizure hearings, said Brady. He has previously represented Jehovah's Witness families in such cases.
Dr. Kerry Bowman, medical ethicist at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday that the issue "raises deep questions in this country about people's right to religious choice."
"They could grow up to say I feel my rights as a child were violated, or not," Bowman said.
However, he pointed out that the hospital was primarily concerned about the well-being of the children.
"These babies, I think in my opinion, are in a lot of trouble," he said. "Two are gone already, they were born pre-term, there were six of them -- all those kinds of things -- so hopefully they can build a very strong argument for saving these babies' lives for these interventions.
B.C. Minister of Children and Families Tom Christensen would not discuss the specifics of the case.
However, Christensen said: "We don't take any such action without a great deal of forethought, recognizing that it's a significant step for the state to interfere in a family."
Doctors have an obligation if they believe a child is in danger, he said.
Brady, however, said the transfusions made little difference to the condition of the infants. He described them as being in stable condition.
The government made the seizure last week to permit the transfusions.
The sextuplets were born in the first week of January at the B.C. Women's Hospital. They were almost three months premature and were about the size of an outstretched hand.
While doctors said they had a good chance of survival, they would face significant challenges. For example, infants that are premature have underdeveloped lungs, problems with eating and weak immune systems.
The parents have chosen to remain anonymous and have not spoken to the media since the children's birth.
With a report from CTV's Todd Battis and files from The Canadian Press
This was one story that always had me set a little off ease with the Cathlolic religion. How can you worship a deity that would say 'kill your own blood to prove your love for me'? just cause God supposedly (in the book) had his own son killed by Romans to prove his love for mankind, are we to expect to do that on a regular basis?
Personally, when it comes to something like this, I would say that the law has every right to step in and do whatever they possibly can to ensure the safety and lives of those in society. A doctor has been to medical school, knows what can and can not happen to a person if a surgery or other procedure is done and therefore should have a say on what can and should be done. We are not talking about a TV set here taken in to FutureShop and given to the repairman and the repairman saying "the picture tube is going, I can put in a new transitor to make it last another 30 years" and then the person going "sorry, transistors are against my religion" and then throwing the dead TV away. We are talking about a living, breathing human being that you are given by either nature or the grace of the deity of your choice to protect and ensure their safety. Put you own personal religious beliefs at the side of the road and do what it takes to save that little persons life. If you have a problem with that, or your religious beliefs might stop that from happening, do that little life a favour, and the rest of the world, and stop reproducing. Babies are a gift, a treasure and a miracle given to you for a brief moment, don't fuck it up!
****
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070131/sextups_seized_070201/20070201?hub=Canada
Sextuplets' parents want apology for transfusions
Updated Thu. Feb. 1 2007 8:47 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A B.C. Jehovah's Witness couple will demand an apology from the province over its decision to allow three of their four surviving sextuplets to have blood transfusions -- a practice that goes against their religion.
The infants were born prematurely, and two of them have already died.
One of the children was given a transfusion on Wednesday, while the other two were transfused earlier.
"The next thing is they'll be in court likely in February and they'll challenge the government and ask the courts to freeze the government's ability to have these children removed for further blood transfusions," said CTV's Vancouver Bureau Chief Todd Battis.
"And also they'll be asking for an apology from the government. And what they're really upset about is that they didn't get the chance to intervene with the judge on their behalf."
Their lawyer, Shane Brady, said Wednesday the family is upset that the transfusions were done against their wishes. In an affidavit, the parents said they "could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl. We took our immense sadness and grief and tried to console each other in private."
"We want the best medical care for our children and want them to live. We have consented to all required treatment. We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions," they said in the court documents.
Brady appeared in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday to challenge the seizure order, which was implemented Friday without a court hearing. But the province abruptly handed control of the children back to the parents when they challenged the order.
However, the parents plan to press on and a court date has been set for Feb. 22 and 23 to hear them.
Supreme Court of Canada decisions from 1995 and 1999 gave parents the right to present evidence at any seizure hearings, said Brady. He has previously represented Jehovah's Witness families in such cases.
Dr. Kerry Bowman, medical ethicist at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday that the issue "raises deep questions in this country about people's right to religious choice."
"They could grow up to say I feel my rights as a child were violated, or not," Bowman said.
However, he pointed out that the hospital was primarily concerned about the well-being of the children.
"These babies, I think in my opinion, are in a lot of trouble," he said. "Two are gone already, they were born pre-term, there were six of them -- all those kinds of things -- so hopefully they can build a very strong argument for saving these babies' lives for these interventions.
B.C. Minister of Children and Families Tom Christensen would not discuss the specifics of the case.
However, Christensen said: "We don't take any such action without a great deal of forethought, recognizing that it's a significant step for the state to interfere in a family."
Doctors have an obligation if they believe a child is in danger, he said.
Brady, however, said the transfusions made little difference to the condition of the infants. He described them as being in stable condition.
The government made the seizure last week to permit the transfusions.
The sextuplets were born in the first week of January at the B.C. Women's Hospital. They were almost three months premature and were about the size of an outstretched hand.
While doctors said they had a good chance of survival, they would face significant challenges. For example, infants that are premature have underdeveloped lungs, problems with eating and weak immune systems.
The parents have chosen to remain anonymous and have not spoken to the media since the children's birth.
With a report from CTV's Todd Battis and files from The Canadian Press
posted by Capt_Canuck at 7:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home