BC Government seizes babies

phobe · 02-01-2007, 07:00 PM

A couple in British Columbia recently gave birth to sextuplets; an extremely rare event which earned a whack of major media coverage in Canada.

It was reported that one of the six died almost immediately after birth, and a second lost its life shortly afterwards. They were obviously very very small and underdeveloped.

It has now come out that the provincial government has had to "seize" 3 of the remaining 4 babies for medical care because the parents are Jehova's Witnesses and will not allow blood transfusions. The lives of the babies may have been saved this way but the parents are still appealing that they were not given due process.

B.C. intervened to save 3 sextuplets after 2 died

Who is right here?

If only this had happened in the States... there would be a Law and Order episode based on it next week to give us all the moral answers.

Revvv · 02-01-2007, 07:27 PM

I personally think the Government did what they had to do in this case. If the parents were neglecting the health and wellbeing of their children then they don't need them in the first place. I would have them looking at no less than 3rd Degree Murder Charges.

Children are helpless and cannot defend themselves. When parents are stupid someone has to be their voice. To me, what these parents did was no worse than a parent that would toss their newborn in a trash can.

SheepOfBlue · 02-01-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revvv

I personally think the Government did what they had to do in this case. If the parents were neglecting the health and wellbeing of their children then they don't need them in the first place. I would have them looking at no less than 3rd Degree Murder Charges.

Children are helpless and cannot defend themselves. When parents are stupid someone has to be their voice. To me, what these parents did was no worse than a parent that would toss their newborn in a trash can.

While parents are not always correct (this case I believe they were not) I would MUCH rather have a parent in charge than some government drone. The burden to take control should be the governments with the bar set high.

seamus · 02-01-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

If only this had happened in the States... there would be a Law and Order episode based on it next week to give us all the moral answers.

Don't worry, they'll pick up the storyline anyway.

Hmmm...forced morality by the moral majority? That doesn't happen in Christian societies. At least that's what I've been told.

smoothrideronli · 02-01-2007, 08:28 PM

Wow...you have to choose what you think is the lesser of two evils...you cant let the babies die but then for the government to seize the babies is a bit shocking. But the right thing was done here.

RAH-VFR · 02-04-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

If only this had happened in the States... there would be a Law and Order episode based on it next week to give us all the moral answers.

Studies have shown that all major problems can in fact be solved in 60 minutes or even less.

Leelover · 02-04-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAH-VFR

Studies have shown that all major problems can in fact be solved in 60 minutes or even less.

Now I see what I have missed by not watching prime time TV!

Leelover · 02-04-2007, 11:29 PM

What is the status of "Reigious Freedom" in the Canadian government?

phobe · 02-04-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leelover

What is the status of "Reigious Freedom" in the Canadian government?

I don't know but our Prime Minster ends all of his speeches with "God Bless Canada".

phobe · 02-05-2007, 12:43 AM

Personally I think they should go down for criminal negligence causing death.

Purpdust · 02-05-2007, 12:44 AM

This is a very sensitive topic, how far can you push common practice/belief.

luvtolean · 02-05-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

Don't worry, they'll pick up the storyline anyway.

Hmmm...forced morality by the moral majority? That doesn't happen in Christian societies. At least that's what I've been told.

This stuff happens here all the time. You see it pop up in the news occasionally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leelover

What is the status of "Reigious Freedom" in the Canadian government?

About the same as here.

First sample I found.

State reunites Witness family

I personally really struggle with this one. The JW's really believe this stuff. And they aren't trying to do harm to others.

But the kids legally don't have the choice themselves either...tough one.

phobe · 02-05-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I personally really struggle with this one. The JW's really believe this stuff. And they aren't trying to do harm to others.

But the kids legally don't have the choice themselves either...tough one.

So what if they get their way and all 6 babies die? Write it off as "God's will"?

luvtolean · 02-05-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

forced morality by the moral majority

That is a concept I really struggle with.

Who says we are right and they are wrong?

I am sure if it was a young family member of mine that was going to die that way, I might end up in jail for kidnapping and forging a release from the parents. Unless I was utterly convinced the child understood, believed and wished to not have treatment. But this would be within my family only.

I am really really not comfortable with the government, or my fellow man, forcing their morality onto me personally.

phobe · 02-05-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I am really really not comfortable with the government, or my fellow man, forcing their morality onto me personally.

Me either, but we're basing our precedents on familiarity. Jehova's Witnesses are not really a fringe group; they're a relatively mainstream group. What if it had been members of an isolationist cult doing the same thing? Would you feel less conflicted?

luvtolean · 02-05-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

What if it had been members of an isolationist cult doing the same thing? Would you feel less conflicted?

Possibly.

In a governmental sense you can't define when something becomes a "real" religion, so it gets shook out in the courts, but I think your average person intuitively understands it. We agree, the JWs are the real deal.

The real sticky point for me is the child. We as a society have decided children cannot make decisions such as those pertaining to their healthcare. I dislocated my shoulder at a lake with some friends before I was 18. We couldn't reach my parents, so a local cop came down, took custody of me, and they were able to give treatment.

So, here we have a child that technically can't decide for themself if they want medical treatment, the treatment that might save their life, and so we have the parents placing their morality on the child, and this moral choice of the parents is directly threatening the life of the child.

I have no problem with laws forcing children to wear bicycle helmets while they ride, but I think mandatory helmet laws for adults suck.

So, the question is, where do we draw the line?

bwhip · 02-05-2007, 01:33 PM

This is a very interesting question. We tend to think of modern medical care as the only way, and as infallible. But how many children die each year while under medical care? Parents, doctors and governments may all mean well, and have the child's best interest at heart, but are we certain that the child's safety is completely assured while under medical care?

Should a doctor or parents be convicted if there is a mis-diagnosis? What if doctors disagree on the proper cure? Which one is right? What would the answer have been 100 years ago, when medical science was not as "advanced?" What will it be 100 years from now?

Obviously, I tend to side with the parents on this one, having successfully raised our children with care that many would not consider conventional. This is not to excuse negligent parents, because there are many, and they should be dealt with to keep the children's safety paramount.

Provocative question, Phobe!

Revvv · 02-05-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Me either, but we're basing our precedents on familiarity. Jehova's Witnesses are not really a fringe group; they're a relatively mainstream group. What if it had been members of an isolationist cult doing the same thing? Would you feel less conflicted?

I agree with these questions. If it was some other wacko allowing their children to suffer without care things would be vastly different and they would not get their children back. Children cannot make the proper decisions with their intellect level.

As a Christian I fully believe that God has the ability to heal. At the same time God has never once asked us to be stupid. God gives us the abilities and advancements in technology for a reason.

[FONT='Times New Roman', 'Times', serif]What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can his faith[4] save him?[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman', 'Times', serif]15 If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman', 'Times', serif]18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works.[/font]
James 2:14-18 (HCSB)

Guess what this says? Trust God to work, but don't just sit and hope. Faith without actions is worthless. If you have a sick child you have to expect God's hand to be involved, but God works through a lot of different means. Doctors are one of them.

Can God heal without anyone doing a single thing? I believe so.
Your actions show faith though. When you act you are expecting to see God work faithfully. This isn't one of those, "God helps those who help themselves theory." This is saying that our actions place faith in God. This is saying, "God I trust you and believe you have the ability to do great and amazing things. I already know you have the ability so I'm going to faithfully move forward with the means and abilities You have given me.

phobe · 02-05-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

This is a very interesting question. We tend to think of modern medical care as the only way, and as infallible. But how many children die each year while under medical care? Parents, doctors and governments may all mean well, and have the child's best interest at heart, but are we certain that the child's safety is completely assured while under medical care?

Should a doctor or parents be convicted if there is a mis-diagnosis? What if doctors disagree on the proper cure? Which one is right? What would the answer have been 100 years ago, when medical science was not as "advanced?" What will it be 100 years from now?

Obviously, I tend to side with the parents on this one, having successfully raised our children with care that many would not consider conventional. This is not to excuse negligent parents, because there are many, and they should be dealt with to keep the children's safety paramount.

Provocative question, Phobe!

I was hoping you'd join this. Since I had the pleasure of discussing your personal beliefs with you over long miles through the prairies, I knew this issue would have special significance for you.

I think the bottom line in this particular case is that the parents' methods failed and 2 lives are lost. Would modern medicine have been able to save those 2 lives? I'm absolutely not qualified to answer that question but it seems they never had a chance to find out.

I hope MaxiB and T1 pick this up too.

asiliat · 02-05-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

Don't worry, they'll pick up the storyline anyway.

Hmmm...forced morality by the moral majority? That doesn't happen in Christian societies. At least that's what I've been told.

Sorry, I think Canada as a country has collectively gotten away from being a Christian society. Same sex marriage and the "three-parent" case goes to supporting that claim.

I think it was fine for the government to step in and take temporary possession of the kids. This is the same as child abuse cases IMHO.

I also agree with Revvv. Let's put aside our views on JW as whether they are protestant Christians or not - the point is that parents have an inherent requirement to protect their kid as best as they can in this world. If their form of belief doesn't allowed medical treatment of some sort - then why bother clothe the child? Have "faith" and throw them out with the bath water. God will take care of them. That is rubbish!!

I think we have to try and keep our kids alive, period. And if parents can't do that, then the government does have a right to step in. Imagine if I created a religion where I could physically, mentally, and sexually abuse my children - would you not protest?

Purpdust · 02-05-2007, 01:46 PM

Interfering with peoples religious beliefs is a very slippery slop, and because the decisions are made by humans on both sides, the system will surely make mistakes. What system needs to be set up so less mistakes are made.

Does the parent know best?

If you follow most recent changes in Canada and the US, the courts have ruled "NO"

bwhip · 02-05-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

...I think the bottom line in this particular case is that the parents' methods failed and 2 lives are lost. Would modern medicine have been able to save those 2 lives? I'm absolutely not qualified to answer that question but it seems they never had a chance to find out...

And if the parents had opted for medical care, and the children had died, we would have just chocked it up to "that's a shame, they did all they could," and no one would have faced prosecution, perhaps even if negligence were involved.

Most of society is inclined to see medical science as Godlike, and God to be, well, some distant entity that you pray to with the faint hope of an occasional miracle. I don't see things that way.

Revvv · 02-05-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

And if the parents had opted for medical care, and the children had died, we would have just chocked it up to "that's a shame, they did all they could," and no one would have faced prosecution, perhaps even if negligence were involved.

Most of society is inclined to see medical science as Godlike, and God to be, well, some distant entity that you pray to with the faint hope of an occasional miracle. I don't see things that way.

I agree with you in every sense, but faith without actions is still dead.

That's like saying you want God to get you across the Country without you making the effort to get out of the living room. The faith of a Mustard Seed can move mountains, but something tells me you have to plant the seed.

02-01-2007, 07:00 PM	#1
phobe circa 1970 Join Date: 12-17-2006 Age: 26 Bike(s): 600RR, 125R Posts: 4,644	BC Government seizes babies A couple in British Columbia recently gave birth to sextuplets; an extremely rare event which earned a whack of major media coverage in Canada. It was reported that one of the six died almost immediately after birth, and a second lost its life shortly afterwards. They were obviously very very small and underdeveloped. It has now come out that the provincial government has had to "seize" 3 of the remaining 4 babies for medical care because the parents are Jehova's Witnesses and will not allow blood transfusions. The lives of the babies may have been saved this way but the parents are still appealing that they were not given due process. B.C. intervened to save 3 sextuplets after 2 died Who is right here? If only this had happened in the States... there would be a Law and Order episode based on it next week to give us all the moral answers. __________________ Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

02-01-2007, 07:27 PM	#2
Revvv www.GrudgeBike.com Join Date: 12-27-2006 Location: I'm the little voice in your head Age: 33 Bike(s): 2003 Suzuki Hayabusa Posts: 488	Re: BC Government seizes babies I personally think the Government did what they had to do in this case. If the parents were neglecting the health and wellbeing of their children then they don't need them in the first place. I would have them looking at no less than 3rd Degree Murder Charges. Children are helpless and cannot defend themselves. When parents are stupid someone has to be their voice. To me, what these parents did was no worse than a parent that would toss their newborn in a trash can. __________________ www.GrudgeBike.com

02-01-2007, 08:28 PM	#5
smoothrideronli www.calendartreats.com Join Date: 12-18-2006 Location: New York Age: 34 Bike(s): 2004 1000RR, 2008 1000RR Posts: 1,375	Re: BC Government seizes babies Wow...you have to choose what you think is the lesser of two evils...you cant let the babies die but then for the government to seize the babies is a bit shocking. But the right thing was done here. __________________

02-04-2007, 11:29 PM	#8
Leelover Remembering RAH-VFR...RIP #20 Join Date: 12-18-2006 Location: Fort Myers, FL Bike(s): 06 FJR1300 & 01 GSXR 750 Posts: 1,473	Re: BC Government seizes babies What is the status of "Reigious Freedom" in the Canadian government? __________________ "The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed. Fear profits a man nothing." Herger the Joyous

02-05-2007, 12:43 AM	#10
phobe circa 1970 Join Date: 12-17-2006 Age: 26 Bike(s): 600RR, 125R Posts: 4,644	Re: BC Government seizes babies Personally I think they should go down for criminal negligence causing death. __________________ Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

02-05-2007, 12:44 AM	#11
Purpdust Join Date: 12-19-2006 Location: AB-Canada/Rome Italy Age: 33 Bike(s): gsxr 750 Posts: 1,456	Re: BC Government seizes babies This is a very sensitive topic, how far can you push common practice/belief. __________________ GSXR 750 - Track CRF450X - Dirt CRF100F - Soon to be a Mini Motard

02-05-2007, 01:33 PM	#17
bwhip Every ride a gift... Join Date: 12-13-2006 Location: Idaho, USA Bike(s): 1098S-SXV550-849-Ruckus Posts: 3,939	Re: BC Government seizes babies This is a very interesting question. We tend to think of modern medical care as the only way, and as infallible. But how many children die each year while under medical care? Parents, doctors and governments may all mean well, and have the child's best interest at heart, but are we certain that the child's safety is completely assured while under medical care? Should a doctor or parents be convicted if there is a mis-diagnosis? What if doctors disagree on the proper cure? Which one is right? What would the answer have been 100 years ago, when medical science was not as "advanced?" What will it be 100 years from now? Obviously, I tend to side with the parents on this one, having successfully raised our children with care that many would not consider conventional. This is not to excuse negligent parents, because there are many, and they should be dealt with to keep the children's safety paramount. Provocative question, Phobe! __________________ Seamus is awesome. Seriously. My Gallery

02-05-2007, 01:46 PM	#21
Purpdust Join Date: 12-19-2006 Location: AB-Canada/Rome Italy Age: 33 Bike(s): gsxr 750 Posts: 1,456	Re: BC Government seizes babies Interfering with peoples religious beliefs is a very slippery slop, and because the decisions are made by humans on both sides, the system will surely make mistakes. What system needs to be set up so less mistakes are made. Does the parent know best? If you follow most recent changes in Canada and the US, the courts have ruled "NO" __________________ GSXR 750 - Track CRF450X - Dirt CRF100F - Soon to be a Mini Motard