Recently sextuplets were born to a family in Vancouver. Little is known about the family other than that they are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses. Last week the state seized three of the four surviving infants to give them transfusions because it is against the tenets of the JWs and the parents had refused. The parents and their doctors were pursuing alternative methods of treatment. The responses in the editorial pages have been vile.
“Perpetuating the myths”
Michael Rai-Lewis (Imposing Religion — Feb 2) writes that parents should not be allowed to impose their religion on infants, who are not capable of choosing anything. When carried to its logical conclusion this is an idea that no religion could ever permit.
Imagine if parents were prevented from imposing religion on their children until they could make an informed choice for themselves — say, at 14 or 16 years old. The children would reject such ludicrous fairytales, the same way children outgrow Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
No, we won’t be seeing this any time soon. The mythmakers simply could not allow it. The duty of parents to brainwash their children is sacrosant in every religion for a very good reason.
My response, which I hope the paper will print:
If choice is what bothers Michael Rai-Lewis (Feb 2) and Christpoher Price (Feb 3), then I wonder how they can condone the state forcing transfusions on those infants. They could not make an informed decision; how does the state have more right than their parents to make decisions for them? These are not parents who have neglected or abused their children in any way; these are parents who have fought every step of the way for these children’s lives. “Selected terminations” and DNRs were recommended by doctors; if not for these parent’s choices, those children’s fates would not even be up for debate. What about those choices? Should the state, which forced a decision on those children in order to save their lives, have forced a decision on them to end their lives?
In the end, it is the parent’s job, even duty, to make decisions for and on behalf of their children. Mr. Price appears to advocate not teaching our children anything until they can understand and make the decisions for themselves. When taken to its logical conclusion, this is an idea that no parent and no society period can permit. Don’t teach your children how to eat healthfully? What three-year old would choose whole grains and vegetables over a cupcake and chips? This is a choice a parent must make. For that matter, what about global warming? If we were to wait to act upon it until everyone completely understood it and was able to make what those who advocate such a choice feel would be “quality” decisions, then we would be waiting a long time indeed. Say, for everyone on the planet to get a Ph.D in environmental studies.
So what Mr. Price’s comment comes down to is “don’t allow parents to teach their children anything I disagree with.” Should I then advocate that people like him should not be allowed to teach their children their brand of athiesm? Afterall, I disagree with it. And if my children are too young to be taught my values and the basis upon which I make them, then so are his.
I am disappointed with the Globe and Mail for printing the nastiness and ignorance I have seen these last few days. Canada prides itself on its openeness and tolerance but apparently that doesn’t extend very far.
February 4, 2007 at 3:41 am
Forgive me, but are you saying that parents should by allowed to let their infants die in the NICU (and premature infants would die, don’t kid yourself) because the parent holds that the lifesaving therapy in sacrilege. It is one thing to put your own life in danger for your beliefs, something I can honor and respect and quite another to put your children on the line. I agree that the letter you quote is full of atheist bigotry and hubris, in itself pretty vile, but I cannot make the leap from that to the idea that what the state did was wrong.
February 4, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I don’t know that what the state did was wrong; I don’t know that what it did was right, either. I have not seen any evidence that the transfusions were desperately needed– just that they’re standard procedure for premies. They might have been; the media haven’t been allowed much information on this case because the family filed for some kind of privacy motion. On the other hand, stories covering the forced transfusion have mentioned details that have been made public like the suggested selective terminations and the DNRs and I think that if the babies had been in desperate need of the transfusions that would also have been mentioned.
Also, I can’t support the idea of life at all costs. Life is important but it is not the most important thing to take into consideration. Letting the state take children away from parents is a dangerous proposition. I will adamantly agree that there are cases where the children do need to be removed from the care of negligent or abusive parents or caregivers. I cannot agree that the state can be allowed to remove children from parents who have beliefs that the state disagrees with. The children weren’t being denied medical care; they were in the hospital. They did have a doctor. It’s one particular kind of treatment that the state was after. Prove to me that these children absolutely needed this action at this time and I will consider the matter. If they didn’t then the state’s action was that of a bully, even if it was well-intentioned.
February 4, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Pdoe-
I have to agree with your letter –in fact, I think it was very well done. I hope the newspaper prints it –let us know if they do!
It’s a lot like what happened in Utah over the Jensen boy (was it the Jensen’s? Okay, I’m having a brain freeze) whose parents refused to have him start chemo until they had exhausted other avenues. The doctors were convinced he would die without chemo, and the state went to force him to have it. It was MESSY, and what’s crazy is that the family refused to give him up, took him to Texas to the alternative clinic they wanted and the kid beat cancer. It was, in the end, the right choice, and helped start legislation over child protection laws in Utah. And boy, were people divided! I wish I remembered all the details now, but it is so similar (to me) to what you described. And there is ALWAYS more to it then just “oh, you’re a bad parent and your child is going to die” –it’s never that black and white…
February 4, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Okay, well it’s not that black and white in cases like these…I’m sure there are times when intervention is desperately needed….
February 6, 2007 at 1:23 am
Wow. What a great letter! I hope the newspaper does print it. Do let us know! And I do agree with you about the state taking away children from parents who are not abusive… they just weren’t following someone else’s beliefs or agenda and to me that is dangerous. Often those in power think nothing of taking children away from a family if they do not agree with the family’s belief. I can think of a homeschooling family who was punished that way because they were vegetarian and would not feed their children meat. The court ordered that they had to follow doctor’s orders of eating meat or else the children would be taken away from them. Ridiculous. Just a doctor out to punish them because he didn’t agree with their lifestyle choices.
I think not too long ago President Hinckley talked about 911 and the ramifications and how soon we would see constitutional rights being taken away from us and that it may become difficult… I think he was right on. I see this more and more with children being taken away from parents. Scary world we live in.
February 6, 2007 at 3:02 am
Well it doesn’t look like the letter was printed. It’s been two days and I haven’t heard from them. I’m not sure about this paper– we switched after the other one we read did an article on the argument for legalizing prostitution in which the writer said it doesn’t matter if women sell themselves for money or for a wedding ring– but the other paper said they’d contact you if they were going to use your letter. I am disgusted. I’m not so much annoyed that they’d print the letters I objected to — everyone has a right to be stupid, bullheaded and wrong!
— but I am annoyed that they won’t print my objection. That’s part of why we switched from the last one– not only couldn’t I believe that the editor had allowed such a vile (new favorite word) thing to be printed but either there was no outcry from the readers or the editor didn’t give them the chance to have their responses heard. Either way, I wanted nothing more to do with such a paper.
The story of the Vancouver Sextuplets seems to have disappeared from the news. I haven’t heard anything about it since Saturday. Fickle critters, the media.
February 26, 2007 at 2:57 am
Great job! I have been checking blogs and youtube for the past couple weeks and have had some good conversations, although one person on youtube apparently didn’t like my presence and blocked me from commenting. (?) Staying civil and calmly explaining things to those who are the same has resulted in some great opportunities for progressive dialogue.