Sextuplets Are Born Into a Religious Debate

Some religious idiocy to go along with your coffee.

OTTAWA — Canada’s first sextuplets, born more than a week ago, are facing an additional complication to the usual premature baby’s struggle for survival: Their parents’ religion forbids blood transfusions, a typical part of a preemie’s treatment.

The babies’ condition remains a mystery, and the hospital refuses to confirm reports that one infant has died.

The six babies were born Jan. 5 and 6 in Vancouver, British Columbia, to parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Delivered at 25 weeks, more than halfway through the typical 40-week pregnancy, the four boys and two girls averaged 1.6 pounds and can rest in the palm of an average man’s hand. The survival rate for such births is about 80%.

The parents have asked to remain anonymous, and the hospital has not provided information since shortly after the births, when a spokesman reported that the babies were in fair condition.

On Tuesday, hospital officials would not comment on a media report citing sources in the hospital that one of the boys had died.

(via J-Walk)

19 Comments

  1. Sextuplets aren’t all that common naturally…wonder if they used fertility treatments and if so, why didn’t they take the hint that ‘God’ was saying “No” :p

    If they did use fertility enhancements and lose any of the children, they’d probably jsut spin it as a sign that God didn’t want them to have so many and they never should have meddled to begin with.

  2. You’re right, Gorckat. From wikipedia: “Before the advent of ovulation-stimulating drugs, triplets were quite rare (approximately 1 in 8000 births) and higher order births so rare as to be almost unheard of.”

    From your post:
    “If they did use fertility enhancements and lose any of the children, they’d probably jsut spin it as a sign that God didn’t want them to have so many and they never should have meddled to begin with.”

    Using my born-again roommate as a guide, that kind of depth of thought is beyond most fundies’ abilities.

  3. Isn’t a free society wonderful.
    We get to pick and choose our convictions.

    We can claim that it’s against God’s will to give blood transfusions.
    However, we can partake in modern science’s technology and take fertility treatments!

  4. How did this become a religious debate. Other than the couple’s religion being noted I don’t see any “debate” happening in the article. I’m not even sure why their religion is being reported in the first place.

    And for all those previous posters making snide remarks ask yourself this, would you be making those remarks if their religion had not been mentioned?

  5. Yes, if they choose to have fertility treatments and then also choose to not treat the premature babies with modern medicine I would be making similar disparaging remarks. However reporting their religion does explain why such bad decisions were made.

  6. jgriffin: How did this become a religious debate?

    article: Their parents’ religion forbids blood transfusions

    IE, they will risk their children’s lives to conform to their religious beliefs. How can it not be relevent?

  7. “And for all those previous posters making snide remarks ask yourself this, would you be making those remarks if their religion had not been mentioned?”

    I wouldn’t be making snide remarks, I’d be demanding they be thrown in jail for abuse and neglect. How can a parent deny their newborn child the medical care they need to SAVE THEIR LIFE? Who else would do that other than a wicked person? Someone who’s convinced themself that letting their child die for their selfishness is God’s will.

    Jehova’s Witnesses need to have their medical books updated. Mother and child swap blood while the baby is in the womb anyways…

  8. People get blood transfusions and die anyway

    It might fail, so we shouldn’t try?

    Life is not in the hands of men.

    That smacks of religious bullshit to me. Life can be influenced by mankind – a blood transfusion gives them better odds of survival, pure and simple.

  9. Point 1: Why not rant against the Child Welfare Office or the B. C. Women’s Hospital for not getting a court order?

    Point 2: Abortion is legal at 25 weeks. Kill’em inside, kill’em outside. What’s the difference?

  10. Point 1: That’s treating the symptom and not the cause.

    Point 2: That argument assumes that everyone agrees with abortion at all, or even at X weeks (24 in the UK, I don’t know about elsewhere).

Comments are closed.