BC Sextuplets....

[helenabear]

I cannot believe that a parent would really refuse a treatment that would save their child. I had a talk with a JW over blood transfusions one time and they really believe that blood transfusions will not save your life.

I'm seriously curious about that. What basis do they have for that thought? I somehow figured it was something more to do with the idea of giving it up to God. At least that is *usually* what very religious people claim when anything comes up like that.

This isn't me knocking any religion. So if anyone has more info, I'd love to hear it and understand their point of view

 

[DisneyAddict_M]

It's not because they think blood will not save your life...it's because blood is considered "unclean." A scripture in their Bible (which I don't have anymore, so I can't look it up) states to abstain from the partaking of blood. I can't remember the exact wording though.

 

[MrsPete]

Just a reminder to people to donate blood. If you're able, please do so. This just shows that donating blood DOES save a life.

At a recent blood drive, I saw a scary statistic: 95% of us will need blood at some point in our lives . . . yet only 5% of us give on a regular basis.

When I hear about cases like this, I remember a situation from high school: A boy who was a senior when I was a freshman died because his parents wouldn't okay a blood transfusion -- they, too, were Jehovah's Witnesses. The courts stepped in, but it was too late to save him. He was a really great kid, and everyone in our small high school was touched by the situation.

I didn't understand the parents' decision then, and I don't understand it now.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Couldn't the objection to IVF just be that often it results in more embryos than will be implanted and those embryos will likely be discarded? Isn't that the most common religious objection to the practice?

While the I think the whole case is very sad and I'm glad the last 4 babies are not going to die, I just don't see why it is particularly hypocritical for Jehovah's Witnesses to allow one type of medical intervention and not allow another. Many other religions make similar distinctions. As far as I understand, according to the Catholic Church (I'm just using them as an example because I was raised Catholic and its easy to find info on Catholic doctrine) it's okay to take a pill in order to get pregnant, but not in order to prevent pregnancy. And it's okay to have surgery to remove scar tissue from fallopian tubes to help with pregnancy, but it's not okay to undergo IVF. I'm guessing other Christian sects also have similar beliefs. Of course, one could call hypocrisy for all of these things because they're all medical interventions which don't leave things up to God's will, but I think the response would be that the determination of whether or not these things are okay is not a matter of the fact that they are medical interventions. I believe for the Catholic Church it is a matter of whether the procedure assists or replaces the act of sex between husband and wife. With regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I understand, the objection to blood transfusions is very specifically an issue about blood--not about letting nature take its course or allowing God's will to be done. IVF or fertility drugs are not about blood. So I don't see that they are any more hypocritical then, say, the Catholic Church.

Now of course, if you want to go deep into you might think it is hypocritical to pull out certain lines of the Bible (ones that mention blood) and give them special significance over others. Hey, I'm totally onboard with this criticism. But this criticism extends way beyond Jehovah's Witnesses and seems that it will apply to most versions of Christianity (and likely most other scripture based religions).

So the difference between this case and any other religious beliefs can't be hypocrisy, but rather just that this case is a life or death situation whereas most of the time members of other religions following their beliefs is not so clearly a matter of life or death (at least not in developed nations; of course, lack of access to birth control results in tons of death of women and fetuses in developing countries where pregnancy is much riskier for the average woman than in the U.S. or Canada).

 

[helenabear]

It's not because they think blood will not save your life...it's because blood is considered "unclean." A scripture in their Bible (which I don't have anymore, so I can't look it up) states to abstain from the partaking of blood. I can't remember the exact wording though.

Thank you... if you find the quote let me know. I have heard of the idea that the woman shedding blood is unclean, but didn't realize ALL blood was unclean. That would make sense to me though if they feel that way.

I suspect there is no way to "clean" blood either (through ritual, medical means or otherwise) then as well? I truly hope you realize I am not mocking, but am 100% curious about other relgions and cultures

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

Couldn't the objection to IVF just be that often it results in more embryos than will be implanted and those embryos will likely be discarded? Isn't that the most common religious objection to the practice?

While the I think the whole case is very sad and I'm glad the last 4 babies are not going to die, I just don't see why it is particularly hypocritical for Jehovah's Witnesses to allow one type of medical intervention and not allow another. Many other religions make similar distinctions. As far as I understand, according to the Catholic Church (I'm just using them as an example because I was raised Catholic and its easy to find info on Catholic doctrine) it's okay to take a pill in order to get pregnant, but not in order to prevent pregnancy. And it's okay to have surgery to remove scar tissue from fallopian tubes to help with pregnancy, but it's not okay to undergo IVF. I'm guessing other Christian sects also have similar beliefs. Of course, one could call hypocrisy for all of these things because they're all medical interventions which don't leave things up to God's will, but I think the response would be that the determination of whether or not these things are okay is not a matter of the fact that they are medical interventions. I believe for the Catholic Church it is a matter of whether the procedure assists or replaces the act of sex between husband and wife. With regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I understand, the objection to blood transfusions is very specifically an issue about blood--not about letting nature take its course or allowing God's will to be done. IVF or fertility drugs are not about blood. So I don't see that they are any more hypocritical then, say, the Catholic Church.

Now of course, if you want to go deep into you might think it is hypocritical to pull out certain lines of the Bible (ones that mention blood) and give them special significance over others. Hey, I'm totally onboard with this criticism. But this criticism extends way beyond Jehovah's Witnesses and seems that it will apply to most versions of Christianity (and likely most other scripture based religions).

So the difference between this case and any other religious beliefs can't be hypocrisy, but rather just that this case is a life or death situation whereas most of the time members of other religions following their beliefs is not so clearly a matter of life or death (at least not in developed nations; of course, lack of access to birth control results in tons of death of women and fetuses in developing countries where pregnancy is much riskier for the average woman than in the U.S. or Canada).

Good points! Hypocrisy is a strong word and should not be used lightly. As you pointed out, we can all be accused of it for following our religious beliefs. Life and death is the real issue here.

 

[helenabear]

I believe for the Catholic Church it is a matter of whether the procedure assists or replaces the act of sex between husband and wife. With regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I understand, the objection to blood transfusions is very specifically an issue about blood--not about letting nature take its course or allowing God's will to be done. IVF or fertility drugs are not about blood. So I don't see that they are any more hypocritical then, say, the Catholic Church..

Truthfully the reason why IVF is considered wrong, is because you are creating life that will (depending on the clinic's sucess rates) will be lost. Even doing the fertilization doesn't mean that the egg will implant. A friend of mine told me that there is a 70% success rate. Even if they only implant one egg at a time (and I am told they do 2) you will lose 30% of what is seen as created life.

I'm not sure if there is a real stance on fertility drugs in the Catholic world. I would imagine that drugs alone are fine. IUI could be iffy though... The whole idea for them revolves around the idea of not stopping life.

Do I find some of that hypocritical? Yes I do, and I would say as much case by case.

I find it less hypocritical now that it is about blood being unclean. It is a belief that it is and I can repect that.

I now just find it sad and irresponsible of these parents. Depending on the method used, they knew full well what they were getting into. Certain procedures are known for creating multiples. I am sure their heart is breaking now after losing 2, but there are so many ways to add to the family. If you know you will not give a child a life saving transfusion, and may lose all the children, you need to think about that before you go through a procedure. JMO

 

[delswife]

It's not because they think blood will not save your life...it's because blood is considered "unclean." A scripture in their Bible (which I don't have anymore, so I can't look it up) states to abstain from the partaking of blood. I can't remember the exact wording though.

Acts 15:29
29: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!

If I remember right they felt that there was no need for human blood. They could use 'artifical blood expanders'? It's been a long time, I can't really remember. I do remember that this was the scripture that was on the no blood cards we carried.

And no. I am not a JW anymore.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Truthfully the reason why IVF is considered wrong, is because you are creating life that will (depending on the clinic's sucess rates) will be lost. Even doing the fertilization doesn't mean that the egg will implant. A friend of mine told me that there is a 70% success rate. Even if they only implant one egg at a time (and I am told they do 2) you will lose 30% of what is seen as created life.

I'm not sure if there is a real stance on fertility drugs in the Catholic world. I would imagine that drugs alone are fine. IUI could be iffy though... The whole idea for them revolves around the idea of not stopping life.

Do I find some of that hypocritical? Yes I do, and I would say as much case by case.

I find it less hypocritical now that it is about blood being unclean. It is a belief that it is and I can repect that.

I now just find it sad and irresponsible of these parents. Depending on the method used, they knew full well what they were getting into. Certain procedures are known for creating multiples. I am sure their heart is breaking now after losing 2, but there are so many ways to add to the family. If you know you will not give a child a life saving transfusion, and may lose all the children, you need to think about that before you go through a procedure. JMO

I definitely agree that the parents were acting irresponsibly when it comes to producing children who are likely to need a medical technology their religion opposes.

I've never heard the reason for opposition to IVF in bold before. It's interesting, because if those numbers are correct, they actually are better than nature does. I think it's estimated that up to 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus, so for every pregnancy (meaning implantation of a blastocyte) that occurs, there is one death of a blastocyte. So the clinic would actually be losing less life than nature does. (Interestingly, there was a philosopher who published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently who looks to the facts about the high rate of death of fertilized eggs to make an argument that, from the perspective of preventing the death of fertilized eggs, NFP is a much inferior method to other birth control methods. He, does, though rely on some controversial assumptions about embyronic death which haven't been established scientifically. The link is here: http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355. Ironically, a similar argument would seem to run in favor of IVF over natural conception based on these numbers.)

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

If I remember right they felt that there was no need for human blood. They could use 'artifical blood expanders'? It's been a long time, I can't really remember. I do remember that this was the scripture that was on the no blood cards we carried.

That's right, I have since found out through trying to understand the parent's position that there are non-blood volume expanders that can be used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

But I wonder why the parents didn't better prepare themselves for the possibility of blood transfusions and use this non-blood option instead? Unless volume expanders would not work in this situation?

 

[5Slays]

As far as I understand, according to the Catholic Church (I'm just using them as an example because I was raised Catholic and its easy to find info on Catholic doctrine) it's okay to take a pill in order to get pregnant, but not in order to prevent pregnancy. And it's okay to have surgery to remove scar tissue from fallopian tubes to help with pregnancy, but it's not okay to undergo IVF.

I grew up Catholic and I am still a practicing Catholic. The point of the Catholic church against BC pills is that it does not prevent an egg from fertilizing (egg + sperm = baby) it prevents it from implanting (inducing miscarraige or abortion take your pick). Catholics believe that life begins at fertilization (conception) so basically if you are taking the pill, you could be having an abortion, which is also against Catholic Doctrine. As for the IVF, like others have said, if all of the eggs are fertilized, but they only implant a few, life(s) has been created and then discarded. I don't find this hypocritical at all. All life is precious, even if it is in a petrie dish.

 

[DisneyAddict_M]

Acts 15:29
29: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!

If I remember right they felt that there was no need for human blood. They could use 'artifical blood expanders'? It's been a long time, I can't really remember. I do remember that this was the scripture that was on the no blood cards we carried.

And no. I am not a JW anymore.

Thank you, that's the scripture I was thinking of. The "artificial blood expaners" was a conscience matter. Some were okay with it, others weren't.

I'm not a JW anymore either, which is why my memory's a little rusty.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I grew up Catholic and I am still a practicing Catholic. The point of the Catholic church against BC pills is that it does not prevent an egg from fertilizing (egg + sperm = baby) it prevents it from implanting (inducing miscarraige or abortion take your pick). Catholics believe that life begins at fertilization (conception) so basically if you are taking the pill, you could be having an abortion, which is also against Catholic Doctrine. As for the IVF, like others have said, if all of the eggs are fertilized, but they only implant a few, life(s) has been created and then discarded. I don't find this hypocritical at all. All life is precious, even if it is in a petrie dish.

The pill does stop an egg and sperm from uniting--this is its main purpose. Progestin pills mostly change cervical mucus, but combination pills both prevent ovulation in addition to changing cervical mucus. It is also known that the hormones in the pill do change the lining of the uterus and IUDs do this as well. I don't think it's been proven that this does in fact stop fertilized eggs from implanting (though this may be a reasonable hypothesis).

I think the widespread realization that the pill changes uterine lining must have been rather recent because through years of Catholic school and church as a child, the pill was lumped together with condoms in the "birth control" category while abortion had it's own category. I understand that in more recent years the pill has been moved into the abortion category as well because of the uterine lining issue. (Or maybe it's not that this was a recent realization, but just that most Catholics don't know or believe in the pill-abortion connection so I never heard about it? Even today my whole family is Catholic and while they are generally anti-abortion, they are all fine with birth control. And to them, the pill is birth control, not abortion. They might just not know about the uterine lining thing. Although, that info has been around for awhile regarding IUDs and I think my family has no objection to those either )

In any case, the Catholic Church objects to *all* forms of birth control other than NFP and most of those forms (condoms, cervical caps, sponges, spermicide) clearly only prevent fertilization, not implantation So while there is an extra objection to the pill--it could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg--the more general prohibition of birth control also applies to it, which is the prohibition I was referring to. Maybe I should have said, "you can take a pill to help you get pregnant, but you can't use a piece of plastic to prevent getting pregnant."

My point was just that every religion has rules that can seem inconsistent, but so long as those rules only affect the people who choose to be members of those religions no one really notices and it doesn't matter. It's only when someone who doesn't freely choose to abide by the dictates of the religion (like the sextuplets) that society has a big problem.

 

[nuke]

I'm assuming that the babies needed blood transfusions because of jaundice. Blood expanders would not help in that case.

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

I'm assuming that the babies needed blood transfusions because of jaundice. Blood expanders would not help in that case.

From what I understand, the babies needed blood transfusions because of the loss of blood volume from having so much testing done (which apparently is quite common in preemies).

 

[Tantor]

I agree - if the mother underwent fertility treatment then it is very hypocritical of them

She did. I agree it makes no sense.

 

[nuke]

From what I understand, the babies needed blood transfusions because of the loss of blood volume from having so much testing done (which apparently is quite common in preemies).

Makes sense. I still wonder if they could even use the blood expanders in babies that small. Poor things.

 

[laurie31]

Our hospital has very strict guidelines regarding the volume of blood that may be drawn from a preemie. (and I'm sure other hospitals do as well) They shouldn't need a transfusion simply from testing.

It's normal for ALL babies to drop their hematocrit after birth, but in preemies this drop can be deadly. What is given to babies is not whole blood, to expand volume, but red cells only, so the baby's blood can carry adequate amounts of oxygen.

In general, blood transfusions of all types are done as a last resort in all patients, regardless of religion. If trauma patients can be treated with volume expanders, then they are. But if they get to the point where they need blood, then nothing else will do. Preemies don't need volume expanders, they need red cells.

I have encountered JW parents who were very relieved when they learned we would take custody of their child long enough to do the transfusion and then return the child. They said then they could truthfully tell their church taht they protested and were not responsible, (and therefore not guilty of sin) yet their child would not die. They were actually happy for us to take custody. Other parents do not feel this way at all and are violently angry when we take custody.

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

Our hospital has very strict guidelines regarding the volume of blood that may be drawn from a preemie. (and I'm sure other hospitals do as well) They shouldn't need a transfusion simply from testing.

It's normal for ALL babies to drop their hematocrit after birth, but in preemies this drop can be deadly. What is given to babies is not whole blood, to expand volume, but red cells only, so the baby's blood can carry adequate amounts of oxygen.

In general, blood transfusions of all types are done as a last resort in all patients, regardless of religion. If trauma patients can be treated with volume expanders, then they are. But if they get to the point where they need blood, then nothing else will do. Preemies don't need volume expanders, they need red cells.

I have encountered JW parents who were very relieved when they learned we would take custody of their child long enough to do the transfusion and then return the child. They said then they could truthfully tell their church taht they protested and were not responsible, (and therefore not guilty of sin) yet their child would not die. They were actually happy for us to take custody. Other parents do not feel this way at all and are violently angry when we take custody.

Thank you for explaining about the preemies needing red cells. From what I understand, Jehovah's Witnesses do have an issue with the red blood cells.

That is interesting what you said about JW parents being relieved when the hospital would step in and take custody in order to do the transfusion. It must be so hard for them to be torn between their children's lives and their faith.

 

[RachelEllen]

Our hospital has very strict guidelines regarding the volume of blood that may be drawn from a preemie. (and I'm sure other hospitals do as well) They shouldn't need a transfusion simply from testing.

It's normal for ALL babies to drop their hematocrit after birth, but in preemies this drop can be deadly. What is given to babies is not whole blood, to expand volume, but red cells only, so the baby's blood can carry adequate amounts of oxygen.
\QUOTE]

I'm going to disagree with this statement. Even with strict guidelines, extremely premature infants rarely avoid blood transfusion. Some hospitals are better than others, but if we are talking 500 gram babies, there is no way they are going to avoid blood transfusions. What is missing from this story is exactly how premature these infants were.

My guess, and this is only a guess, is that these infants had some sort of blood loss before birth. It would be unusual for infants to lose blood so rapidly from testing that a court order couldn't be obtained. If two died in that time period, there most likely was some sort of emergency going on. Then again, it might be a difference in the US and Canadian system. Here, we can get a court order in a matter of hours.