I’ve been following the case of the Jehovah Witness parent’s who gave birth to sextuplets in Vancouver, BC on January5th/6th and I can’t understand the parents logic.
In a nutshell, the couple has refused to give their babies medically necessary blood transfusions because it is against their religion. 2 of the babies have died, and now child protection authorities are stepping in to protect 3 of the remaining 4 children. Earlier this week, 2 of those children were given blood transfusions. The parents are responding by suing to authorities, saying the province has violated their constitutional rights.
I am no expert in the Jehovah Witness religion. I do know that they oppose blood transfusions. But do their religious beliefs extend to denying their children the right to life by withholding medically necessary treatment? At what point does the state have an obligation to step in to protect children?
I’ll admit, this is treading into really delicate territory here. It’s easy to see how this kind of issue could be expanded to include abortion. And this is where the faulty logic of the parents comes into play. The father has stated that, on 2 occasions, they refused to abort any of the fetuses. So, they are “pro-life” (to use a loaded term), but then they refuse a medical intervention that could save their children? How does that logic make sense?
As a parent, I can’t understand how you could sit by and watch your child die when the means to save them is available. That kind of blind faith boggles me. And you really have to question the sincerity of the statement by Mark Ruge, spokesman of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, when he says, ”We want the best, I mean, who doesn’t want the best?”
Isn’t living “the best”?