yeah, its ethical for the government to give them blood transfusions. For me, the sticking point here is in two questions;
1) to what extent can the religions (and subsequent rules, etc) of a parent be automatically transferred to their child
2) what is it that is particular about the parent that gives these people complete agency over these babies as human beings, made clear in the extreme case of allowing these children to die because of beliefs that the child has not yet had any opportunity to affirm.
I think the answer to one is "no." I think religion is ultimately and should be at its inception a voluntary, conscious choice made by each person. For example, suppose a child is born a vegetable, but due to medical care, has been kept alive for, say, 30 years. This person's parents are Christian, but I do not think that many people who say that this person is also a Christian. They have no physical way of realizing what that entails, and it's ridiculous to attribute religion as a trait in the same vein as something genealogical like "red hair".
As for the second, I believe it is first and foremost the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their child is raised in such a way as to ensure to the best of their abilities that the child has a chance to gain as much agency over their life as possible. Death is the natural antithesis of agency.
did you happen to catch the fairly recent medical release on amniotic fluid as a stem cell source/substitute? I know, its been around for a while, but it was made scientifically official recently, and bodes well for stem cell research because the fluid does not necessarily have to be taken from a cultivated fetus and circumvents most issues of ethics on the subject.
Originally Posted by StealDragon
Last edited by Aikido; 02-05-2007 at 09:20 PM.
wow, i nvr heard bout this news...
i think the gov't did the right thing
just a question. the biggest debate on abortion is when the child is aborted cause its parents dont want it right? the reason on not wanting arent much but they are still considered as the reason why abortion is accepted. now here we have the governement forcing something that the parents won't accept. so the parents knew the risk of getting seriously injured children, they knew their lives would be hard, both children and parents and they accepted it.... more then can be said for the people who have an abortion for stupid reasons. now the parents have their precious children contaminated....... now.. who will really take care of the children? if the children themselves are deemed unfit by the parents?
i obviously dont agree with the way the jehova witnesses think. and i donate blood just to spite them but did the governement really think about this? isnt the governement just a bit dumb to allow abortion and all means of control against children and then come in to save children which are already deemed to have a hard life let alone now that the parents consider them unfit? Just a point to think about. considering that we are discussing death in other threads also wouldnt it have been better to let them die with the love of their parents? or is it better to let them live in pain ? probably disabled and without the true love parents can give? My opinion always
P.S although the parents should care for the children no matter what... in our society this rarely happens and we dont condemn the parents who get rid of their unborn children so can we condemn these parents if they stop loving their child?
The government did the right thing by giving the transfusions. You don't have the right to let someone die just because you feel like it. Man, this is exactly why I believe that some people shouldn't be allowed to raise children.
On the other hand, the government were a bunch of idiots when they returned the babies to the parents. You have two callous bastards who are willing to let their children die just to uphold their own delusional ideology, and just when you've forced them to not let their kids die, you hand them back.
Brilliant thinking there, Canada.
@DBeRsErK: Apples and oranges, man. Besides, the whole abortion topic has been dragged through here so many times that there is little point in discussing it anymore.
Here's a question, what if the kids who grow up with the jehovah's witness belief don't think it was right? Also, what about alternative methods?
There is one girl, of age 14 who had cancer. She was a Jehovah's Witness, and the Canadian Government was going to orce her to take blood transfusions. She ended up going to the States to a doctor who specialized in treatement without blood transfusions. She is now cancer free. Did the Canadian government have a right THERE to force her to have blood transfusions? They thought she was under the thumb of her parents. What dying teenager would acutally stick to something they didn't truly believe?
here's a link:
As for the kids however, I think it's only right if there were no alternatives.
And here's another case:
Agreed, but what aobut the 14 year olds? the 17 year olds? Do they not get a say because the government tells us they are not old enough to make their own decisions?
Originally Posted by Digital_Eon