Sextuplets' parents want apology for transfusions

Firestreak said:
This what happens cause Canada doesn't allow guns. As a result, stupid people don't shoot themself in the face before child bearing years.
Click to expand...
maybe we can start with the "you people" shit that people give us here in america, huh
 
I side with the parents on this one.

The parents are idiots for refusing the transfusion but they are within their rights to do so and suggesting otherwise sets a bad precedent.

What if instead of a blood transfusion it was a therapy which has only a slim chance of successfully curing the affliction but major short and long term side effects? Should a parent who declines to subject thier child towards such be faced with the risk of loosing custody?

Before you answer yes, I ask you to refer back to that case a year to two ago where a teenager (16 or 17 I believe) refused to go undergo chemo for cancer treatment. It was unsuccessful the first time and the treatment almost killed him. However, because he refused, the parents almost lost custody of him. It was dropped later on because of his age but what if he was 13 instead of 16? Would the court have ignored his wishes even if he displayed full cognizance and maturity about the possible outcome?

What a child suffered a malady in which there was a 40% chance of dying without treatment but the treatment had a 60% chance of leaving them a quadriplegic or a vegetable? Shouldn't it be up to the parents to have the first right to make that decision of the child was unable?

In addition, while it might be successfully argued that people should have a license to breed, there are still very good and successful parents out there. Parents that have only thier childrens best interests at heart.

The government is simply incapable of providing the care and guidance a child needs. In support of that arguement, I only need to point how many teens leave group or foster homes and end up pregnant or using drugs or generally falling behind the curve of society.
 
Last edited:
It's a slippery slope but it goes either way. In Hinduism, the belief is that you will ascend to higher levels by suffering through your life so you are reincarnated as something better in your next life. As a result, in India some parents actually cut the hands off their children in hopes in their next life that they'll move ahead.

Over here, you cut your kid's hand off, you go to jail. I think it should stay thay way.
 
Don't get me wrong though... all about individual freedoms over the government tyranny... but every human needs basic rights, like the right to live that should be above their parent's ability to overrule.
 
Reeve said:
I side with the parents on this one.

The parents are idiots for refusing the transfusion but they are within their rights to do so and suggesting otherwise sets a bad precedent.

What if instead of a blood transfusion it was a therapy which has only a slim chance of successfully curing the affliction but major short and long term side effects? Should a parent who declines to subject thier child towards such be faced with the risk of loosing custody?

Before you answer yes, I ask you to refer back to that case a year to two ago where a teenager (16 or 17 I believe) refused to go undergo chemo for cancer treatment. It was unsuccessful the first time and the treatment almost killed him. However, because he refused, the parents almost lost custody of him. It was dropped later on because of his age but what if he was 13 instead of 16? Would the court have ignored his wishes even if he displayed full cognizance and maturity about the possible outcome?

What a child suffered a malady in which there was a 40% chance of dying without treatment but the treatment had a 60% chance of leaving them a quadriplegic or a vegetable? Shouldn't it be up to the parents to have the first right to make that decision of the child was unable?

In addition, while it might be successfully argued that people should have a license to breed, there are still very good and successful parents out there. Parents that have only thier childrens best interests at heart.

The government is simply incapable of providing the care and guidance a child needs. In support of that arguement, I only need to point how many teens leave group or foster homes and end up pregnant or using drugs or generally falling behind the curve of society.
Click to expand...

Your refrence to the teenager having cancer is null. These are premature babies with under-developed organs. The blood transfusion was to get blood flow to build white blood cells and red blood cells because they were born 3 months earlier. Under the Canadian law that was mentioned in the article the government's branch of family services was in full right to take the babies who have no will yet from their parents. There is no magical therapy that will produce blood cells for these babies. Hell Kemo has negative side effects as in your example. The doctor trying to do the right thing of saving under-developed babies so that 4 instead of none lived. The custody was handed over and in my opinion the parents should not have custody if they wont seek proper medical treatment needed to keep their kids alive. You wonder what kind of neglect is brought up later for the parents letting their religion block their views. You keep using teenager examples which is a bad idea because teenagers have a mind of their own and can give input if they have the mental capacity to do so.
 
But then let the children die Reeve? Those children NEEDED those transfusions. The docters duty is to do anything they can to keep a baby alive, or at least that's how it is in Canada.

The examples you've chosen were different situations all together. You said what if it wasn't blood transfusion, but a thearpy that had dangerous side effects. Well of course that would be a judgement call (on the teenager) and the parents. This is 3 infants who will most likely die if they didn't receive it, with a very low risk scale of anything going wrong. Two completely different situations.

Those parents do, but should NOT have the right to take away their babies rights to live along with any religion wether it's Christianity, Hinduism, or Jehovas Witness.
 
What good does it do if the children live but are damned? Some things are more important than your next breath, and fuck the government for imposing its will on the parents in such matters.

(For the record, I'm an atheist who sides with the parents on this. Idiots, but I agree with them for wanting an apology.)
 
Eradicate the whole family. The moment she popped out the 6th and last kid, it should have been obvious they were all damned. Government shouldn't intervene unless they're willing to firmly declare the parents aren't fit and will take all the children away for good. If they can't make that case, don't disobey them. The parents will have to take the heat over the kids actions till they turn 18 anyways, so they get the payback of being able to inflict what they wish, at least until someone decides that their relationship with their parents is at an end.

There is some fierce sarcasm mixed in there. I'll let you all try to guess what it is.
 
Do what it takes to keep the kids alive. They can decide later for themselves wether or not that is what they wanted. The parents can fuck off.
 
To anyone on the parent's side, would you be with them if they simply decided they couldn't afford kids anymore and wanted to let their kids die - and there were no religious implications?
 
Plain vanilla child neglect?

It's not an issue here. The parents weren't arguing to let their children die.
 
Halifirien said:
Plain vanilla child neglect?

It's not an issue here. The parents weren't arguing to let their children die.
Click to expand...

Question is... should parents have 100% control over their children and that's why you support them...

...which would mean they could allow their child to die for any reason they felt.

Or do religious matters overpower basic human rights issues?

In which case a religion that says it's alright to cut your child's hand off to send them closer to nirvana is then allowed.
 
Then if my religion says it's customary for a 8 year old girl to marry a 60 year old guy, I should be allowed to send my 8 year old daughter to be the sex slave of some 60 year old?
 
Halifirien said:
I'd argue that religious freedom is a basic human rights issue.
Click to expand...

That leaves a lot of room for abuse. You can argue just about anything is okay because it's a part of your religion.
 
Kerowynn said:
That leaves a lot of room for abuse. You can argue just about anything is okay because it's a part of your religion.
Click to expand...

I don't deny it leaves room for abuse, and you're preaching to the choir on this one. Like I said before, I'm atheist. My point is that the parents are well within their rights to demand an apology, and they should get it. The hospital violated their children in a fundamental way that may not make sense to the rest of us but is very real to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top