If a JW refused a transfusion for their child should they lose custody for child endangerment?
And the child should get the transfusion to save their life?
- TigerLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
In the country I live in at the moment leaders for such atrocities are executed. You may have a lot of opinions about China, but I think maybe they have a point here. Not long ago a 4 year old boy (not JW) died because of so called "faith". After that the authorities decided for death penalty for the leaders. (not parents).
- 'maters GrannyLv 78 years ago
No. If the hospital forced the transfusion and said child contracted HIV/AIDS, any Hepatitis or other blood borne disease should they be charged with criminal intent to do harm? If the child dies should they be charged with murder?
Nobody thinks about the danger of transfusions. All they want to do is bash us for obeying God. If someone dies from lack of a transfusion it is because of a mitigating circumstance. IV fluids can keep veins and arteries open will the body makes red blood cells and dumps them into the blood 3 days later. Production can be increased by use of SQ meds. Like Mom said, google transfusions and get educated. Blood is not the gift of life.Source(s): Retired nurse of 40 yrs. Jehovah's Witness for 30+ yrs.
- TinyLv 68 years ago
No they shouldn't. Just because a person gets a transfusion doesn't mean they will live. There are more people who develop complications or die after being transfused then those who refuse a transfusion. If you do some research you will see that doctors are now able to perform major operations with out the use of blood as a result of Jehovah witnesses refusing blood. We do not wish any of our love ones to die especially our children. We opt for non-blood alternators instead of blood which most of the time is contaminated with viruses and diseases. Non-blood alternative have proven to be more effective.
- Anonymous8 years ago
When someone who loses their child because of complications from a transfusion will others take the blame for murdering them? That happens to many as well
Listen, bloodless surgery is the way to go now. Even the army is using it more as well and many hospitals and the results are great ! Less infections, less problems, better recovery time. Do a little study on it. Get educated. Many hospitals are giving doctors new lessons on this as many don't know new ways they weren't taught. .
I care about my family and myself enough where I looked into this .
I think you are looking for a reason to pick when you don't have knowledge that many hospitals are seeing how well bloodless works.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Like A SirLv 58 years ago
I think I'd have to say yes to the transfusion, but perhaps not a loss of custody for the parent. Maybe just a little education
- Anonymous4 years ago
it quite is the mothers and fathers perfect to decide on what form of scientific therapy their toddler gets. yet there have been circumstances the place the government has stepped in and extra the toddler. in maximum circumstances blood isnt needed, its only one thing that has exchange into undemanding. Its a huge money maker for the wellbeing facility so as that they hand it out like candy. chilly surgical operation is larger for the affected person in the long-term(and there have been dissimilar analyze to instruct that) there is usually a raffle of contracting some thing from the blood supply, even tho the administrative. needs you to think of its secure.
- SeadayLv 58 years ago
No. The government has no right to judge the truth or falsity of a religion, or force a specific medical intervention it thinks better than another.
While I do not agree with the JW interpretation of the Scripture, I do agree with their right to raise their children according to their beliefs.
- SkeptikittenLv 78 years ago
Hell yes. There is legal precedent that religion is not an allowable reason for child endangerment.
- Anonymous8 years ago
No, but if the child dies, the parents should be executed.