• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Parents rights violated???

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
The parents of Canada's first sextuplets will be in court today to challenge the B.C. government's decision to seize three of their babies and administer potentially life-saving blood transfusions.



A woman enters BC Women's Hospital in Vancouver, B.C. in this Jan. 7, 2007 file photo. (CP / Richard Lam)

The parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and their religion forbids blood transfusions under any circumstances.

Two of the babies died Jan. 7 after their premature birth.

Then, under court order, the provincial government seized three of the four surviving sextuplets and allowed doctors to administer blood transfusions -- without first permitting the parents to present evidence.

Supreme Court of Canada decisions from 1995 and 1999 give parents the right to present evidence at any seizure hearings, said Shane Brady, the lawyer for the family.

The province abruptly handed control of the children back to the parents when they challenged the order. However, the family decided to press on with the challenge.

"If the government took control of your child and they made certain assumptions and statements and maybe even authorized treatment that you objected to I would think for many parents that wouldn't be the end of the story,'' Brady told The Canadian Press.

"They want some answers and they want the court to say that what happened was unfair and shouldn't have happened.''

He said his clients want the court to recognize that their constitutional rights were violated.

"The family's very upset with what happened. They were never given an opportunity to defend themselves."

The parents' names, and those of their four surviving children -- two boys and two girls -- are under a publication ban.

The parents were originally set to appear in B.C. Supreme Court on Feb. 21 but the hearing was postponed after the Ministry of Children and Families asked for more time to process the massive amounts of information related to the case.

Protests

During the two-day hearing, former Jehovah's Witnesses are planning to gather outside the court to protest against the stance of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada -- the Canadian branch of the religion.

Chris Christensen, a former Jehovah's Witness from Manitoba, told CP that the rally will include former members from Vancouver, Washington State and Alberta who all want to send a strong message to "all Canadians" about the religion.

Calgary resident Lawrence Hughes, another former Jehovah's Witness, has sued the society over what he says was the wrongful death of his 16-year-old daughter Bethany in 2002.

His daughter needed blood transfusions as part of her leukemia treatment but Hughes said the society convinced her to instead use alternative procedures -- including a treatment option that involved taking arsenic.

The lawsuit, and another one against Brady, will be heard in the Alberta Court of Appeal on June 28.

"I think what the B.C. government did was the right thing, giving these babies a chance to live,'' he said.

"What these parents are doing is infringing the rights of the babies by forcing their religious beliefs on them."

Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions citing biblical texts, including Acts 15:29 which says "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood."

They are not, however, against medical treatment and inform members about bloodless treatment options. There are also Hospital Liaison Committees that can be called upon for advice by those in hospital.

"More than 1,400 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide are equipped to provide doctors and researchers with medical literature from a data base of over 3,000 articles related to bloodless medicine and surgery," says the Jehovah's Witnesses official website.

Brady said that if the court agrees that the parents' rights were violated it will give the family a moral remedy as it will be a declaration that it shouldn't have happened.

He offered no details on the condition the four surviving babies but did say that "they're healthy."

With files from The Canadian Press
 

Steve

Well-known member
It is an issue I am torn on....

Do parents have the right to refuse treatment that would save the life of their children.

I don't know the "governments" VS "parents" position in this...I don't like them taking over,..but I also disagree with the parents.


Looking at the religious aspect:.., I do know that My God would speak to me directly if he wanted me to make a decision of that magnitude.

So unless he directly spoke to me i would do every thing in my power to save the life of the child he blessed me with.
 

Cal

Well-known member
I'm geussing the whole sextuplet thing didn't occur naturally. It's odd that the whole procedure that creates multiple births is okay, but a simple transfusion is not.
 

the chief

Well-known member
If these parents cannot accept life saving transfusions, then they are not fit to be parents. So, let them bury their children. It's what they obviously want.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
I think when one becomes a parent they will go to the ends of the Earth to protect the lives of thier child{children}Usually when the government steps in the situation is abusive to the child,I really have a hard time not thinking this is a form of abuse,when a child CAN be saved but because of the parents way of interpeting the Bible the child suffers.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
If parents won't protect their children then someone has to..... In this case I'm all for the government stepping in. Sane parents would move heaven and earth to ensure their children life.
 

Latest posts

Top