religion over your own children?

Hi guys. Well I have a question for you all and at first you may be confused about it, but soon you'll understand why I'm asking.

Should a persons religion come before there child (ren)?

The reason I'm asking this may be unclear to a lot of you, but this is what I'm getting at. Recently (about last month) a women from Canada B.C. gave birth the sextuplets (six children) her and her family believe in a certain religion (which shall name un named) in which they are against blood transfusions, and participating in politics. The sextuplets were born about 2 months early then they were supposed to. And all of them needed blood transfusions, for there survival. The parents refused. Due to there religious beliefs, 2 out of there six children died, about the age of 1 months. After hearing of there death, the Canadian government, took the remaining 4 infants, and gave blood transfusions, against the parent's wishes….

Is that right or wrong? Should a government, take someone's children, and give them life saving medical treatment, against the parent's wishes?

After the children were given blood transfusions, they were given back to the parents, but the Canadian government has said, that if more blood transfusions are necessary they will be given. Then I have another question,

If your religion forbid to you from doing a type of life saving treatment, for your child, would you still follow it?

And then there is the question of all questions, "after this blood transfusions, would a mother stop loving her kids? Just because they had a processor to save there lives? "

I'm not opposing this certain religion, or anything. But I think its important to think, is it right to put your religion over anthers life?

Do tell your opinion

Thanks

Love

Reeha

Originally posted by: reeha...k

Hi guys. Well I have a question for you all and at first you may be confused about it, but soon you'll understand why I'm asking.

Should a persons religion come before there child (ren)?

The reason I'm asking this may be unclear to a lot of you, but this is what I'm getting at. Recently (about last month) a women from Canada B.C. gave birth the sextuplets (six children) her and her family believe in a certain religion (which shall name un named) in which they are against blood transfusions, and participating in politics. The sextuplets were born about 2 months early then they were supposed to. And all of them needed blood transfusions, for there survival. The parents refused. Due to there religious beliefs, 2 out of there six children died, about the age of 1 months. After hearing of there death, the Canadian government, took the remaining 4 infants, and gave blood transfusions, against the parent's wishes….

Those parents should be thrown in the jail with charges of murder of 2 other human beings, the 4 should be put in orphanage

Is that right or wrong? Should a government, take someone's children, and give them life saving medical treatment, against the parent's wishes?

After the children were given blood transfusions, they were given back to the parents, but the Canadian government has said, that if more blood transfusions are necessary they will be given.

Are you kidding me? The govt actually handed the kids over to the parents knowing they will again risk the childresn lives?

Then I have another question,

If your religion forbid to you from doing a type of life saving treatment, for your child, would you still follow it?

heck yes, what religion, any life is far more important than any scriptures, especially if that child happens to be mine

And then there is the question of all questions, "after this blood transfusions, would a mother stop loving her kids? Just because they had a processor to save there lives? "

my point again, the Govt officials gave those kids back to the parents, first thing how did they even let those parents back on the street?

I'm not opposing this certain religion, or anything. But I think its important to think, is it right to put your religion over anthers life?

Do tell your opinion

Thanks

Love

Reeha

sorry no offense to any religion or so

Originally posted by: Dazlingflower

Are you talking about Jehovah's witness? You raised an ethical issue. There is no bright line that can be drawn between discussion of medicine and discussion of religion. Therefore, when conflict occurs, people usually inheres in medical recommendations. But then you also have to consider parents wishes. If they don't believe in blood transfusion and American constitution gives freedom of religion then they are entitled to their freedom. It's a tough call. I have seen JW patients die, but they don't give in to blood transfusions. Government doesn't interfere usually in adult matter. Adults can make their own medical decision. Here is a moral and ethical problem- babies can't speak their minds yet. They can't make medical decisions on their own. Would it be fair to let them die? Would they have chosen to die if they were adults?

its completely different when there audults, because its there personal choice, and they are old enough to understand there dicission. But an infant of 1 month, has no obligation to a religion. They dont even know there names properly, how can they be oliged to a religious responsiblity? Personally i felt that it was the parents belife that stoped them, not the childs. If an infant dosent knwo there race, religion, sur name- how will they chose to live or die? I think to chose bettween life and death, you have to first at least experience life for a certian time.

And another thing. Just because the children got bloodd transfusion, dosent make them not there parents children, dosent mean that the parents should stop loving them.

thanks

love

Reeha

(yeah that was the exact religion i was talking about - no offense)

Originally posted by: sareg

sorry no offense to any religion or so

you have some great personal ophinions. I agree that the goverment taking the kids was a good decision. But i also think that they did it a bit too late. 2 had already died. As for the parents, even though they have there kids, they still have to give blood transfusions. And i believe the results for the voting were, well the question was, "Do you think what the Federal Goverment did was right?" well what the goverment did was take the kids and give them blood transfusions without the parents consent. RESULTS(PROVINCAL -British Columbia) (with a %5.5 margine of error) YES: %84 ; NO %13 the second question was, "Would you put your religious belife before your child" RESULTS (FEDRAL - Canada)(also with %5.5 margine of error) YES: 18%, NO: %82

What do you think?

Originally posted by: Dazlingflower

Are you talking about Jehovah's witness? You raised an ethical issue. There is no bright line that can be drawn between discussion of medicine and discussion of religion. Therefore, when conflict occurs, people usually inheres in medical recommendations. But then you also have to consider parents wishes. If they don't believe in blood transfusion and American constitution gives freedom of religion then they are entitled to their freedom. It's a tough call. I have seen JW patients die, but they don't give in to blood transfusions. Government doesn't interfere usually in adult matter. Adults can make their own medical decision. Here is a moral and ethical problem- babies can't speak their minds yet. They can't make medical decisions on their own. Would it be fair to let them die? Would they have chosen to die if they were adults?

Thats not democracy its neglect and dereliction.... if religion is so dear to them they should give the kids to the state...rather than murder them in name of religion. this is akin to sacrificing kids for religious reasons.. The reason is not important if somebody, being innocent dies...

Originally posted by: reeha...k

its completely different when there audults, because its there personal choice, and they are old enough to understand there dicission. But an infant of 1 month, has no obligation to a religion. They dont even know there names properly, how can they be oliged to a religious responsiblity? Personally i felt that it was the parents belife that stoped them, not the childs. If an infant dosent knwo there race, religion, sur name- how will they chose to live or die? I think to chose bettween life and death, you have to first at least experience life for a certian time.

And another thing. Just because the children got bloodd transfusion, dosent make them not there parents children, dosent mean that the parents should stop loving them.

thanks

love

Reeha

Why would I be offened? 😊 I exactly pointed towards your explanation.

(yeah that was the exact religion i was talking about - no offense)