Posted on 05/02/2005 8:24:03 AM PDT by Born Conservative
The bitter fight over a blood transfusion for a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness Okanagan girl is heading to a Toronto courtroom.
The girl has gone into hiding with her family in Ontario to avoid blood transfusions that a B.C. court ordered should be given if medically necessary.
Jeremy Berland, B.C.'s director of child welfare, will apply to the courts to authorize the "safety net" of transfusions if needed in her cancer treatment.
Berland is scheduled to appear in Ontario Superior Court tomorrow to force the girl to have the treatment, including blood transfusions, if required.
"Our primary and principle concern has got to be for the child's health and safety," Berland said yesterday.
"Life and safety are at stake here and we need to make sure that she is going to be safe," said Theresa Lumsdon, spokeswoman for the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development. "We're definitely worried."
Heath-care officials, the court, and police don't know where the teen is staying.
"We are using all of the resources available to us to make sure that we know where she is, and that she is safe," said Berland. "We have asked for the assistance of the Toronto police."
Police and health-care officials are searching for the girl in the Toronto area.
Berland said he couldn't comment on reports she is in hiding with fellow Jehovah's Witnesses in the Toronto area.
Family lawyer Shane Brady said the girl and her 43-year-old dad and 41-year-old mom will be in court tomorrow.
The girl's name and her hometown cannot be revealed due to a court-ordered publication ban.
The teen was taken to Ontario by her parents after an April 11 B.C. Supreme Court ruling said she couldn't refuse treatment despite her religious beliefs.
The girl and her parents argued the transfusions would be a "violation of the Biblical command to abstain from blood."
The B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development was granted custody of the girl last week.
"We obtained an ex parte order in B.C. Supreme Court last week placing her in our custody," said Berland.
B.C. officials are not necessarily going to insist that the teen return to B.C.
"What we want to do is to make sure that she gets the health care that she needs," he said. "And we want to make sure that happens in a way that is consistent with the best medical practice for the kind of illness that she has."
The girl's hemoglobin fell to "well below" levels where a blood transfusion is usually given, said Boyd.
Boyd said provincial laws allow courts to protect the rights of children in need of medical care.
"All children are entitled to be protected from abuse and harm . . . the ultimate threat of harm would be death," said Boyd. "Ultimately, her religious beliefs don't override her right to life and death."
The girl, who was diagnosed with a cancerous tumour on her right leg, has already undergone several rounds of chemotherapy.
The girl and her family were at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children but were urged to return to B.C. to continue the prescribed care. The teen was last seen with her parents on Friday.
A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses in B.C. supports the girl's decision not to have transfusions.
"Every individual should have the right to decide what they do with their own personal health and circumstances revolving around their health," said Raymond Busby, an elder in Burnaby's Capital Hill Jehovah's Witnesses congregation.
"The Bible has clear standards that we are not to take blood as Christians. And so we adhere to that standard."
Doesn't this kid have the constitutional right to commit suicide? So what are these authorities concerned about?
Oppressive!
I agree this is oppressive. "No transfusions" is a basic religious tenant of JW.
That said, I also think they are completely nuts.
I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness, and I would have to say that while the religion itself is totally wrong, they're not exactly nuts. They're more just under-educated, simple folks that somehow don't get that the religion's beliefs are contradictory and ridiculous.
Fair enough.
"Nuts" really is too strong a word.
If it were an adult refusing treatment for religious reasons I'd have no problem with it, but to risk the life of a minor due to an irrational belief is a form of child abuse IMO. This is one of those rare occasions where Canadian courts got it right.
It is not up to you or me to decide if this is right or wrong or if their beliefs are nuts. Rights are rights and when we start deciding what individuals can have rights and what people can't have them then we are falling into the dems trap of letting the courts make new rights and legislate from the bench.
Children do not belong to the courts, they belong to the parents until they are legal age. Period.
Not in Canada, no.
"I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness, and I would have to say that while the religion itself is totally wrong, they're not exactly nuts. They're more just under-educated, simple folks that somehow don't get that the religion's beliefs are contradictory and ridiculous."
I grew up as a JW too. I can honestly say, I haven't seen that amount of cognitive dissonence massed in one group since I saw the Democratic National Convention.
Some of the cognitive dissonence is caused by the overpowering rules of the Governing Body; I.E. The governing body is sent by God and it's rulings are the final say, yet sometimes they make mistakes. Also, the idea that they're better than the Catholic Church because they're less legalistic, yet there have been victims of past and current WT legalism (The refusal of blood transfusions, vaccinations, and organ transplants.)
As for the church itself, it nearly killed my cousin with it's "No blood" speil.
It's sad to see these parents, forcing these kids to hold onto beliefs that may or may not be seen as "Christian" in a few years, yet resulting in the deaths of many.
BTW, to the XJW poster, do you also post on www.jehovahs-witness.com ?
Well, not really...
From the Gospel of John
6:48 I am that bread of life.
6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
14 is pretty old.
And the JW are relying --- albeit confusedly --- on Acts 15, which is hardly a verse that is clear as day.
And I believe (without remote first hand knowledge -- request is made of the former JW on this thread) that they may consider this a Salvation issue.
So it's a serious issue, on plausible, accepted-by-more-than-a-handful-of-wackos grounds.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY: where does one draw the line?
For example, would it be OK to force an abortion on a 14 year old conservative Christian because giving birth will probably kill her?
You're way behind us, then. In the US, if you don't decide to commit suicide, some judge will do it for you, when he decides that's what you want.
What do you mean by "salvation issue"?
"It's pretty Talmudic if you ask me."
I don't disagree at all. Indeed, I have great faith that they are misguided. And I tell them such anytime they come to my door.
But it is there religion, and none of the governement's business, no matter how stupid.
Otherwise, the government will be telling Christians that they have to stop saying homosexuality is a sin.
Wait, that allready happened in Canada . . . .
Salvation issue = going --- or not going ---- to Hell issue.
vs.
"mere" sin "shoulda done it, shouldn't have done it, it's a sin and-I'll be punished (or need to repent and sin no more, whatnot), but still going to Heaven"
But they're always flat broke to the point where at least once a month, one or another of the utilities leaves a final pre-shutoff notice on their door.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in what you probably mean by "Hell". They don't believe we need to be saved from "Hell", but from slavery to sin and receive eternal life. Taking in blood would be the same as any time a person commits a gross sin intentionally. They don't believe that if a person takes in blood he is condemned to eternal destruction. If the person truly repents then God says you are forgiven. We humans don't determine who is saved or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.