Holly, if you were in the hospitial unable to eat the doctor would insert a feeding tube into you. In that way you are not actually eatting the food but it is still entering your system. The same with a blood transfusion, you are not eatting the blood but it is still entering your system, and the bible tells us to obstain from blood.
The parents had God Jehovah's commandment in mind when they made that decision. Medicine has come so far that there is no need for blood transfusions. There are other ways to handle it.
when I was a baby the hospital and state forced a blood transfusion on me. and I feel violated, it's something although I had no control over I hate and I regreat and live with my whole life knowing that someone forcally made me violate God's commandments.

Megan, Archbald, USA

A lot of people seem to be saying in effect that all parents should be forced to let their children receive the MMR triple vaccine (uk). The side-effects of the MMR vaccine are a lot less researched and understood than the very real risks from blood transfusions, yet how many parents refused to let their children have the MMR?

It is reasonable that the Parent has the right to make decisions based upon what they believe to be best for THEIR child.

Nobody says that parents shouldn't be allowed to transport their children in small cars or on a bicycle, live in an earthquake zone, let their children play sports etc. there are a thousand and one other examples.

check out www.pubmed.gov or recent newspaper articles for info about the risks associated with blood.

Jehovah's witnesses believe they have a chance to live forever on earth with their children, even if they have died, by obeying the bible's command to christians at Acts chapter 15 verse 29 to 'abstain' from blood.

James, London, UK

Blood issue at a glance: The Watchtower leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses say NO blood, BUT they actually DO ALLOW some blood "fractions".
Problem is this variance is so esoteric complicated that by the time special elders appear in the ER with the rule book, the JW patient is at the point of no return,bleeding to death.
NOW,they blame the hospital staff for not having a "cell saver" machine instead of the Watchtower leaders who are responsible for making the rules.

I was born a 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness in 1957 and endured the Watchtower's no blood commandment with longstanding bleeding Crohn's disease.The Watchtower leadership expects followers to die for their dogma and many have.The medical staff get blamed and are 'damned if they do damned if they don't'.

In 20 years there will be artificial blood for anyone who chooses it,putting an end to this drama.

Daniel , Maine, USA

More non Jehovahs witnesses refuse blood than Jehovahs witnesses themselves.Blood cell salvage machines donated by Witnesses are therefore sometimes unavailable when needed.How many people die as a result of receiving blood itself?Thousands! Any hassle or persecution over this? Minimal.However one witness may unfortunately die and a viscious assault results,stirred up and twisted,usually from apostates with an axe to grind along with church leaders who do not like scriptural truths being taught that diminish their own power.However the Bible is not open to interpratation over blood ,it is self explanatary. "Abstain from blood",if a Doctor told an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol would he refuse to drink it but then set up a drip of vodka?It is not the Creators ruling over Blood consumption that is at issue here it is having an understanding as to why?Surgeons prefer bloodless surgery,less complications and proof of being highly skilled,the best!!Please study the facts, not propoganda!

Neil, Scotland, UK

If there wasn't a spoon involved then how is a blood transfusiion related to this scripture, i think theres a misinterpretation here. How can they even ask for there two babies back after they refused to give them life, not to help save all of them lives Is this murder. And now they want they're othe two babies back after refusing them life. Come on America stop baby sitting grown people and don't tell me they went out and got some one of there faith to represent them in court. If so, is this a losing battle or what?

darl, humble, texas

TO:Kurt , Melbourne , Australia-
What you have posted and (misspelled) about Jehovah's Witnesses not accepting blood components that are derived form Red Cross collections is false.

Jehovah's Witnesses maintain their blood transfusion ban is from the Bible commanded by God,binding on all mankind.

Then why does the Watchtower leadership allow so many blood component fractions to be taken?

It's like saying I am forbidden to eat a ham sandwich but can eat all the parts of it the ham,lettuce,bread,pickle separately BUT not the whole sandwich.

Either it (whole blood) is ALL sacred and not be be used in transfusions or it isn't sacred and "parts" of it can be used?
Why this complicated esoteric enigma?

Daniel , Maine, USA

Jehovah's Witnesses maintain their blood transfusion ban is from the Bible commanded by God,binding on all mankind.

Then why does the Watchtower leadership allow so many blood component fractions to be taken?

It's like saying I am forbidden to eat a ham sandwich but can eat all the parts of it the ham,lettuce,bread,pickle separately BUT not the whole sandwich.

Either it (whole blood) is ALL sacred and not be be used in transfusions or it isn't sacred and "parts" of it can be used?
Why this complicated esoteric enigma?





It is the Watchtower that has heaped controversy on itself with it's arbitrary flip-flopping decisions on what "parts" aka fractions of Blood are allowed and disallowed.

If you go by the old testament it says to pour ALL the blood onto the ground as dust as it is ALL sacred to God.So,where does the Watchtower get the authority to decide what "parts" of something that is sacred can be used?

Moreover,no question it's more healthy not to put another persons blood or any body parts into your body if you don't need it.In cases of emergency trauma such as in a car crash if I lose 3-4 pints of blood I will die without an emergency transfusion there is no time for fancy modern gadgets or vitamin supplements to 'build up my blood'.

Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks (so called blood 'fractions') but they themselves won't donate a drop.

Daniel , Maine, USA

Im afraid charles, that your wrong in saying that Jehovahs witnesses accept fractions of blood. They don't accept any part of the plasma, red blood cells, platlets or white blood cells, which are the components of blood. And the most certaily DO NOT accept blood donated from red cross but you are write in the fact they also don't donate it. Maybe you could benift from the study they provide for free to learn the truth about their stance instead of those false accusations.

Kurt , Melbourne , Australia

Jehovah's Witnesses would rather obey God's law than men's.We can express our opinions here,even those who know little about this people.Why don't accept a Bible study with them,those who are judging them wrong so you'll get better understanding of the Bible principles that they want to stand firm?It's useless to say a lot of things if we know little. They do not want there children to die, but believe if it is vital.

jeff clarke, alabama, america

People who do not share Jehovah's Witnesses beleifs will likely find what these parents have done difficult to understand. Namely that a ressurection of the dead will take place under God's kingdom , those in that new system will amongst other wonderful benefits, never have to die . Those parents want that future for their children and themselves. What, i ask, is wrong and unloving in that?

J. C, Hampshire, England,

1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?

2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.

3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.

Charles, London, UK

I will not state my religion, nor my belief. I will, however say this: We have no right to decide what is right and wrong for others. The Bible says in Jerimiah that mankind does not know how to lead himself. We need a manual on human life and the Bible is it.
It is funny and sad to read all the nay-sayers screaming that the parents were willing to let their kids die. The JW's do not want their kids to die that is why they did not allow the doctors to abort some. They were asking for an alternative treatment that the hospital did not want to administer.
What about the fact that the court just handed the kids back after? If they felt the parents were so incapable of do what was best for their kids, then why are the kids back in their parents custody? That is a shame. You people need to research what you are complaining about. Are all the people who have a "DNR" (do not resuscitate) order fanatics, too? NO. They have simply made a medical decision.

S.C., Michigan,

We do allow them to have transfusions—the safer kind. We accept the kind of transfusions that don’t carry the risk of such things as AIDS, hepatitis, and malaria. We want the best treatment for our children, as I am sure that any loving parent would.
(1) When there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume. No doubt you realize that our blood is actually over 50 percent water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth. When much blood is lost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into the system and speeds up production of new ones. But fluid volume is needed. Plasma volume expanders that contain no blood can be used to fill that need, and we accept these.
(2) Plasma volume expanders have been used on thousands of persons, with excellent results.
(3) Even more important to us is what the Bible itself says at Acts 15:28, 29.

Mr, Michigan,

these parents should be charged and tried for child endangerment

arthur maw, kingstown, barbados

Who are Jehovah's Witnesses?

No tolerance,the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult because they try to cut you off from others who do not have the same beliefs, including family.
Jehovah's Witnesses can be wolves in sheep's clothing,liars leading liars.

Mark, London, UK

The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet.

Wonderful medical advances will surely come 'synthetic blood' will be a reality soon and the Red Cross won't have to have collection centers anymore.

The point is everyone,is that the Watchtower forbids whole blood transfusions now,and has prohibited any and all blood transfusions until recent changes

Danny Haszard, Bangor, Maine

The issue of blood of Jehovah’s Witnesses involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives. Their relationship with their Creator and God is at stake. Furthermore, they wholeheartedly believe the psalmist’s words: “The judicial decisions of Jehovah are true; they have proved altogether righteous. . . . In the keeping of them there is a large reward.”—Psalm 19:9, 11.Some persons who look just at the short-term effect of decisions might doubt that obeying God’s law about blood can be considered ‘rewarding.’ But Jehovah’s Witnesses are sure that obeying the directions from their Creator is for their lasting good. The early Christians felt the same. History shows that their obedience to God was sometimes tested to the limit.

Robin, cuttak, India

The issue of blood for Jehovah’s Witnesses involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives. Their relationship with their Creator and God is at stake. Furthermore, they wholeheartedly believe the psalmist’s words: “The judicial decisions of Jehovah are true; they have proved altogether righteous. . . . In the keeping of them there is a large reward.”—Psalm 19:9, 11.

Some persons who look just at the short-term effect of decisions might doubt that obeying God’s law about blood can be considered ‘rewarding.’ But Jehovah’s Witnesses are sure that obeying the directions from their Creator is for their lasting good.The early Christians felt the same. History shows that their obedience to God was sometimes tested to the limit.But they obeyed it -Acts15:28,29.

As the brothers and sisters they obeyed and with no doubt they would earn their belongings double as Job recieved twice as much he had before because of the only cause of obeying God's law.

Robin, Newyork, United States

After 19 years of having to practice the Jehovah Witness Religion, I can now freely voice my opinion on this. I am now a parent of two small children and I would do anything for my kids to keep them alive. We are told that God is love, well wouldn't a loving God want us to do everything we can to keep our children alive? I agree with Karry from England who said how many of us who have ever cut our finger then suck the blood off or how about people that like to eat meat should be forbidden. What happens is that it says one thing in the Bible and then it gets interrpetuded into something else.
One more thing I would like to mention is that one lady here had said that Jehovah Witnesses were one big happy family? Not true! If you do something that Jehovah Witnesses dont approve off then they disfellowship you or in my case just quite going to meetings and I have Jehovah Witnesses constantly shunning me. To me that is not a religion that is love.

A reformed Jehovah Witness, Prince George,BC, Canada

A heads up on the Jehovah Witnesses

The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming 'invisibly' in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.

There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the 'imminent' apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.

Marion, London,

Acts 15:28,29 "Mentions to keep obstaining from Blood "
Regardless of religious background I feel all people should have rights to refuse Blood transfusions or even any treatment they choose for the off spring and them selves. The Governentment and Doctors hospital should not be allowed to interfere with a soild stand a family makes regardless of religious background . I Feel for the Parents of the sixtuplets , think they made a good choice to continue fighting for there rights .
Ones who don't agree with there choice should maybe consider studying the Bible with one of Jehovahs witnesses and then maybe you then change your mind since People of this world ain't like a big family but when you become involved with jehovahs people your like in a big happy family everyone helps one another regardless of race , nationaily . They all seem to get along so if more people were like them this world would have peace , security insteed of wars , crime ,sickness . God's word Strengthen us!

S.D, Fraservalley, canada

The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet.

Wonderful medical advances will surely come 'synthetic blood' will be a reality soon and the Red Cross won't have to have collection centers anymore.

The point is everyone,is that the Watchtower forbids whole blood transfusions now,and has prohibited any and all blood transfusions until recent changes

Daniel, Boston, USA

TO Kristin:

The tenet in Acts 15:28,29 is not from the old law, it is part of the new covenant, after Jesus' death. The scripture shows that god's viewpoint toward the sanctity of blood was just the same after Jesus' death as it was before. You would not force a cancer patient to take chemotherapy if he did not want to. A blood transfusion is no different. A person has the right to determine what medical treatments will or will not be used on them as a person, and the bible gives parents the right to determine what can or cannot be done to their children. This is not the choice of a government, no matter how well meaning they are.

Stacie, Van Buren,, Arkansas, US

Jehovah's Witnesses would rather obey God's law than men's.We can express our opinions here,even those who know little about this people.Why don't accept a Bible study with them,those who are judging them wrong so you'll get better understanding of the Bible principles that they want to stand firm?It's useless to say a lot of things if we know little.

Jovie Mendy, west palm beach, florida

When Jesus came in the new testament the old law was no longer needed. We now live under the new law. Do you as jehovahs witnesses cut your hair? That was considered a no under the old law. Why must you just pick certain points out and hold them as truth. Either the whole old law is still true or its not. You need to read the new testament again!

Kristen, regina, canada

In response to all comments about JW'S not being Christian and that how can governments allow cults like this to exsist. It is the very same respect for blood that JW'S do not take up arms in ANY country. While the rest of you so called Christians, evolutionists. agnostics, athiests were out there war mongering, slaughtering men,women, children and BABIES to the tune of 55million in the second world war over 20million in the first and you're still out there slaughtering you all ought hang your heads in shame. Jehovah's Witnesses and only Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who can trully walk proud as the have dignified the human family.

ozzie, gawler, australia

to J. Jones and the rest who think that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in Jesus. Ok Most of you "think" that Jesus is God. But Psalms 83:18 says God's name is Jehovah. And John 3:16 clearly states that Jeus is his son. So What is the problem? READ your bible. We, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's SON, not God himself. Read any bible older than 100 yrs. At Psalms 83:18 it clearly Identifies Jehovah as God's name.

Justin Frye, Fort Dodge, IA

Also, if God says don't do it, why can't people just take that as it is.

Jehovah's Witnesses want to live and they want good healthcare, but why speak negatively about them when they follow the bible?

I have read above that some people who consider themselves Christians are in fact thinking that God doesn't care if we break his laws. They reason that we can break them and then he will fix it if something wrong happens. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Come on now. Reason.

God says no blood. Blood is something sacred. The bible says that he has not changed! God will not bless you for breaking his law. Point blank.

Sorry for the caps, but no one seems to be getting it.

Brittany, Atlanta,

Only God can give back life, only God can resurrect life, so God´s principles and laws i think are the best. your child will not give you back life, you will not call your child back to life, only God can. so i think i will choose to obey God than to save my child. not eating blood is also in the new testament i have once read it in Act 15: 20 and 29. it is not just eating, tranfusion is also eating. when you can eat through your mouth the doctor finds other ways to make you eat. maybe through your veins.

Eating from the Mouth or Vein is the same, it all goes into the body. I think the wittnesses are right. People should really consider this. God gives life and he is able to bring life back if you obey and trust in him.

Ruth, Munich, Germany

The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions.


They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet. Neither the Jews nor other groups oppose blood transfusions because they don't try to put a spin on something that isn't there.


If the Watchtower sect had not issued this prohibition, no Jehovah's Witness would oppose them on Biblical grounds.

Danny Haszard, Maine, USA

J Jones from London.

Why do you feel you know so much on the subject when the 2nd line of your response was completely wrong? One of their main teachings is Jesus ramsom sacrifice, which would be a bit strange if they didn't believe in him.

I suggest that you, and Danny who also feels he is some sort of expert, speak with these people next time they call and find out the facts rather than speaking about something you know so little about. I do not pretend to have all the answers as some people do, but logic would suggest hearing it from the horses mouth, so to speak, rather than believing everything you read in the papers or on the internet.

Dianne, Newcastle, England,

Sorry but i have just one question to ask; What is more important? Your childs LIFE or religion?
I personally know what i would choose but isnt the whole point of the bible there to give us choice why should we be given the dilemma of watching a child die or give them a blood transfusion, surely God would want to help and protect this new born child not allow it to die

Ceri JAne, Great Britain,

What a bunch of hypocrites if we were talking about Muslims and a transfusion of pork, you would have nothing to say

But since it is a Christian religion you feel entitled to trample on want you do not understand

p.s. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is god’s son and our redeemer

You should not speak of what you have no understanding of

PAUL WILLIAMS, ADDISON, U S A

Did Ale Gore "invent the Internet"?


Attributing advancements in bloodless medicine primarily to the Jehovah's Witnesses fanatical no blood position.Can be like accrediting Hitler for the development of smaller fuel efficient cars because the dictator commissioned the Volkswagen bug.

It's the humanitarian efforts of non Jehovah's Witness researchers without much input from JW's who shun higher education (4% have a college degree) that have saved their lives.

(Actually Mr Gore did play a crucial part in the initial promotion of the World Wide web)

Danny Haszard, Bangor, Maine USA

Blood isn't totally 'safe' that's the whole point.The Watchtower DOES allow many of the 'fractions' of blood components.

Why the Jehovah's Witnesses hypocrisy?

Who are theses Watchtower cult leaders to play God with the lives of children?

Danny Haszard, Bangor, Maine USA

I have one big queation for Danny Haszard!

If Blood is so safe, why is the University of Southern California Medical center in Los Angeles, California Trying to do all their Transplant surgeries without Blood Transfusions. Contact them and find out for yourself on the dangers for Blood. I could go on and on with lists of medical centers all over the United States that are turning to Bloodless surgery. Also ask any major medical Center in the Uk Who donated them Cell saver machines to further Bloodless surgery.

A concerned Grandparent

Jon M Ralston, Cottage Grove, ORegon

Comment from Denise,Atlanta-""they were then why are doctors falsely checking in hospitals, claiming to be Jehovah's Witnesses, ..""

This is false

Danny Haszard, Bangor, Maine USA

Watchtower picks and chooses what parts of blood can be transfused by it's arbitary man made regulations.

Thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses including many minor children are dead because of the Watchtower's twisted flip-flopping blood transfusion ban.

These are hard facts.

Danny Haszard, Bangor, Maine USA

Because people don't know what the Bible really teach, they are ignorant to the facts as many of the far going comments show. Research has shown that blood transfusions are not safe. And if they were then why are doctors falsely checking in hospitals, claiming to be Jehovah's Witnesses, just because they don't want blood transfusion given to them. If people researched the Bible, they would know what the Bible teaches. And the decision that Jehovah's Witnesses make is no different from other medical decisions that parents make for their children. Many infants that I personally saw in the hospital when my niece was born permature, die as a result of the blood transfusion. The nurse said that they would try something else if the blood transfusion didn't work.

Denise, Atlanta, GA, USA

The main problem with this artice i feel, is that the writer clearly didnt not know the difference between Christains and JWs. The latter do not even believe in Jesus. Also, i dont know a single Christaisn who has a problem with "ingesting blood". If this feud involves Jehovah's Witnesses, then how come the church are invioved, as they are apparently at the beginning of the article. Since Jesus created the new covenant, Chrsitains need no longer follow the commands laid down for the Jews. How can the Times publish something like this which completely confuses such an issue?

J Jones, London, UK

I'm concerned that Jehovah's Witnesses are being labelled as Christians. I am a Christian and I was happy to have a blood transfusion when I once had a routine operation. As Christians, we believe that God has raised up doctors, nurses and certain people to help advance medical science. If a blood transfusion can save life or help a person recover from an operation, then I believe it's good and the right thing to do.
I understand the reason behind the verses about eating blood, is that blood represents life and that is why God gave the command for it not to be eaten. If blood can give life, then the patient should be free to receive it.
Jesus came so we could have life and have it to the full (John 10 v 10).
Being a Christian is about living life with God’s Holy Spirit living inside you. It’s about knowing that Jesus passionately loves you and living in response to His love.

Kevin J Foulger, Bracknell, England, UK

Ignorance! Put aside the biblical reasoning, how many doctors themselves who accept a blood transfustion? I bet very few. There are so many alternatives to whole blood transfusions it is only a poor doctor in my opinion that can not perform surgery without it.

Maria de los Angeles, El Paso, TX

JWs have the same inability, to properly interpret the meaning of the word "eat" in the Levitical text, as American intellectuals having in interpreting the Second Amendment of the Constitution regarding the right to bear arms.

Wrong interpretation of both cost lives.

Kranky Konservative, Riverside, USA / California

Jesus was 30.
Let me condense the comments above.
"What the Bible says is rubbish."
"The Bible is really, REALLY old."
"Blood -- which numerous studies have shown is dangerous medicine carrying dangers of rejection, AIDS, hepatitis, mismatching (even the pope got an infection from his blood transfusion) -- is a miracle drug that embodies the modern accomplishments of the medical profession and there are no alternatives."
"If parents ask for alternatives, we should force them to take blood because we think its best and don't want to be bothered with less risky alternative treatments."
"The government is my god."
"I should make no decisions for my baby until he is 33."

Mike, Lawton, Oklahoma

To all.
In southern California there are a number of Medical centers that treat premes without blood on a regular basis, such as the Thousand Oaks Medical Center Where my own granddaughter was treated without blood. She was a preme, and another hospital said that she had to have blood to survive. she was tranfered to T.O. blodeless center and now is doing well. So please do not pay attention to the prediguces of others and the missinformation that is put out.

A concerned Grandparent.

Jon, Cottage Grove, ORegon

Stupidity and superstition should not be allowed to excuse child abuse.

This kind of religious belief is more akin to mental illness than spirituality.

Patrick , Harrogate, UK

Rest assured, blood transfusions were not the only thing the doctors could have done. It may have been the quickest and the easiest, but not the only thing that could have been done. Doctors are not always right.
Be careful, it may be your rights as a person, as a parent, whose beliefs will be taken away and ignored.

I cant wait to see the outcome in court!

Kim, San Francisco, USA

I question whether there would have been such interest in the lives of these children had they not been the first sextuplets born in Canada?
The parents have their own beliefs & did what any parent would do - what they believed to be best for their children & while I cannot agree with refusing to life saving treatment I can understand their reasoning. Parents make choices for their children based on their religious & social upbringing until their children are old enough to make such choices for themselves.
I personally believe that the court was at right to intervine to save the lives of the children they could, but hey that's just my opinion.

Oh btw, Pete, Cov. what has this got to do with homosexual couples adopting? or PC gone mad?

Jo, London, England

The decision by jehovah's witnesses not to accept blood should be seen as a great social benefit, as stated by mike from london. But is also true "while the parents are at liberty to make martyrs of themselves, their children are not. They are too young to hold beliefs, never mind to express them.
mahesh, malaga. Spain.

mahesh mansukhani, malaga, Spain

Pete:
How absurb to compare the sexual orientation of a parent - which never results in the death of a child - to a religious 'choice' based on an archaic interpretation of a 5000 year old verse of dubious origin - which places a child in mortal danger.

This is a difficult and tragic situation but your trite reduction of it to an excuse for gay/PC-bashing is nothing more than an insult to most people's intelligence, if not your own.

paul, London,

the decision by Jehovah's Witnesses not to accept blood should be seen as a great social benefit. It's Darwinism in action. They're happy, society is happy.

Mike, London,

How much longer can the civilized world allow religion to persist?
Only religion allows for contradictions between what is right and what is in accordance with faith. Just because you believe magical fairies will protect your kids, doesn't give you the right to put them in harms way.

May the government have the strength to do the morally and rationally correct thing of protecting these children from their parents.

Leo, San Diego, CA

To selectively reduce is to kill the babies in the womb. Why do doctors offer death with one hand and life with another. What other treatments were available. Choices can be made without violating conscence. God support the parents from the media circus.

Jeremy, Leicester, England

Hold on.

Religous discrimination does not apply to this case, because allowing the parents to exercise their belief will bring harm to the child, who is too young to express belief.

If thats the case, why are homosexual couples allowed to express their sexual orientation and then adopt a child, even though we know for a fact that an optimum situation for a child is to be brought up in a household with a mother and a father?

In other words .. Gays > Religion

Typical PC nonsense.

Pete, Cov,

If the parents are so adamant about blood in any form,
why go to hospital at all. Why not go behind a bush and
deliver and make their own decision on the outcome.
If they decided to involve a medical centre then they should
abide by "their law" which is to save lives.
Imposing their views and religion on new born babies is
equivalent to taking away their right to decide what's good
for them. After all, Jesus was 33 when he decided to be
baptised so why impose one's belief on a baby at birth?

Jacqueline, Perth, Western Australia

I am amazed that blood is still seen as a life saver; there have been many scares related to blood, making it more a health hazard than anything else. Thousands of doctors now recognise this.
Many, many people who are not Jehovah's witnesses now seek bloodless surgery or refuse blood transfusions...
There are other alternatives to blood. Jehovah's witnesses do not want to be "martyrs", they, like any other person, want good healthcare, while respecting their beliefs.
If those babies died because of the blood transfusion, who would be accountable then?
How can it be right to seize the children of law abiding and moral people, while on the other hand we hear of same sex couple being allowed to adopt children?

Barrett, La Souterraine, France

Being an evangelical christian, I believe the Canadian authorities did the right thing. Yes the Bible tells us not to drink/eat blood - this is what other faiths did at that time and was considered evil - rightly so as it meant the murdering of children/women to do so.
However, our Lord is the greatest healer ever to walk this earth and I'm sure He would agree that modern medicine is necessary to save lives as we mere mortals are unable to do the miraculous as He did Himself.
This is typical of JW's who misinterpret many parts of scripture to suit their own ends.

lewis, Caerphilly, Wales

This couple obviously love there children and want whats best for them as well as sticking to Divine Principles. What the medical profession did by inflicting a blood transfusion on those babies was no more than rape in my opinion.The parents have a right to bring there children up according to Gods standards and ways after all as the Creator of man shouldnt he know whats good and bad for us its been proved time and again about the Dangers of blood transfusions and all the diseases it brings.Instead of condemning these people why not look into there beliefs and understand the God that they have come to know and love.I wish them all love and peace and i hope they win there fight to Religious freedom. love debbie.

debbie, nottinghamshire, england

Nothing is said about the conception of these poor babies. Were they conceived naturally or born as a result of IVF treatment? It is most unusual for six foetuses to develop from natural conception. I know very little about Jehovah's Witnesses, but, if they are fervently opposed to blood transfusions, is not the introduction of IVF treatment alien to these people too?

Mary Mac, Glasgow,

Biblical interpretation (literalism) is a source of faith for many people. "The bible says - the bible says - the bible says", is an often heard retort. The concept of a blood transfusion didn't exist at the time of Leviticus. Will the babies actually 'eat' blood for sustenance or is the blood to be used to save their lives?

Too often religious groups are locked in an emotional and interpretive time warp that defies common sense.

Jonathan Heaton, London, UK

In response to those who said that doctors should have used bloodless treatments, these babies were suffering from a severe iron deficiency due to an early birth. Due to their small size other treatments, such as iron supplements or folic acid, would have been ineffective. The only possible way for the babies to metabolise enough iron to save their lives was a blood transfusion.

Please ensure that you have your facts correct before you assume that the media is taking a bias.

John, Newcastle,

Tolerance and respect for other people and their beliefs is one thing but when those beliefs fly in the face of modern science and jeopardize the safety of children then thats something else. Blood transfusions save lives every day, its a great tool of medicine, and a proven one. Yes there heave been cases where poor blood screening has resulted in the transmission of disease but thats a separate issue all together.

I find this JW's bizarre belief no less appealing and contradictory to modern western society than a suicide bomber going to heaven with 17 virgins or what not.

Ridiculous, and I'm glad the provincial government took matters into its own hands and saved the children's lives without regard to some fanatical belief.

Edgar, Vancouver, Canada

The Bible is always open to interpretation. And yes, I agree that this is a very wide interpretation.

How does it make sense to grieve over the loss of 2 children and not, as a parent, want to do anything possible, to save your others? I find that to be a total contradiction.

To me, the whole situation is sad. The babies did not choose to be any part of any specific religion. They're not old enough to make that choice, and therefore suffer for it in the name of someone else's beliefs.

Jessica, Florida, Florida

Eating the blood implies taking the blood into the body as is backed up in harmony with many other scriptures, if one was told to abstain from alcohol he would not then request it be injected into his veins by a doctor.
Jw's have the upmost professional care when in need of surgery and have helped in the advancement of many bloodless surgeries which are now becoming recognized as safer in a world of sexually transmitted diseases etc.
If you look up the Hospital Liason Commitee founded by Jw's you will find more information.
It seems convenient that this article hasnt mentioned any of the other options the parents most probably had in mind for the babies, and the fact that they refused “selective reduction” just shows their value they hold on a life.

bob, london,

Clearly the parents are being misrepresented in this article. Medical 'selective reduction' would have been murder of the unborn. Lovingly these parents protected their unborns' right to live. Yet, the writer passes over this fact. Again, after their birth, parents protected their right to health by wanting the best of medical care for them, ie a safer alternative to blood transfusions. Far from being 'life-saving' -as stated - blood transfusions do kill and damage health. Anita Roddick now with Hepatitis C is an unfortunate example of this. There are treatments available other than blood transfusions, which are safe and effective. Why did the medical personnel involved refused the babies access to this better and safer medical care - against the parents wishes? One cannot escape the conclusion that these unethical staff were the ones who had wanted to 'selectively reduce' them in the first place. Those loving parents did their best to protect their babies before and after, in keeping with their Christian faith, only to be defeated by others who do not have the same interest in the right to live.

Bruno Lopez, London, UK

If they are not interpreting the Bible, why are they opposed to transfusion? The blood is not in any way eaten, after all. They can follow this part of the Bible and allow transfusion, but they have chosen a particular interpretation which widens what 'eat' to a ridiculous point.

Second, they can't watch their daughter being 'violated' but they can watch her die and do nothing? Some moral code to live by...

Alison, London,

The difficulty for bioethicists is that this has nothing to do with the physical outcome. It is trivial to say that a blood transfusion is better than dying; you don't need a doctorate to work that out. The difficulty is to determine ethically whether the prior relationship between parents and children is special and takes priority over the state's wishes, even when the parent appears to be objectively in the wrong. Most of recorded human history has put parents in the position of authority because in some sense children really are an emmanation of their parents until adutlhood. This has only been challenged since approximately 1989, and the 20 year results of that change in thinking are not encouraging. Parents stripped of authority may have reacted by abdicating responsibility too. It has to be admitted that you don't find many of the children of Jehova's Witnesses in the dock or waving guns at each other. Maybe they are on to something and we should be more careful about setting aside their wishes.

D Samuel, Cambridge, England

nutters

jimmy casey, toronto, canada

As a religious person myself, I believe that religion can be a wonderful and fulfilling aspect to our lives.

However, I am of the opinion that the main principal of most religions is love, and what love is greater than that of a parent?

If I had just given birth, my number one priority would be for the safety of my children, and I would want to prolong and make comfortable their lives in any way, no matter how it disagreed with my religion.

How is refusing treatment for innocent babies because of religious beliefs any different from terrorists killing innocent people because of thiers?

Natasha, Merseyside,

what you need is a US President JW, suddenly Blood Transfusions become a Federal Offence !

Markc, London, UK

I have great sympathy for the sincerely held beliefs of anyone, however wrong or unbiblical they may be. But this situation goes beyond personal beliefs. There is great pressure placed on Jehovah's Witnesses by their organization to conform to every official teaching without the slightest deviation. To deviate is to risk being shunned by the organization which is seen as the source of all correct biblical interpretation.
The Witnesses' interpretation of the biblical commands to abstain from eating animal blood (Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) is odd indeed since these verses ban, not life-saving medical procedures, but rather, practices that do not show proper respect for life or which are directly associated with idol worship. So the Witnesses, who are otherwise uniformly pro-life, are put on the other side of the debate by their adherence to this interpretation of "abstaining from blood." They are put on the side of death.

Greg Dixon, Rogers, USA

I find it incomprehensible and disquieting. I agree with Simon.

F. Congiu, Cagiiari, IT

Jehovah's Witnesses once did not allow vaccinations claiming that they were 'Satanic practices'. Eventually they reversed the decision and now accept vaccinations.
Jehovah's Witnesses once did not allow organ transplants, claiming they were a form of 'cannibalism' but they are now permitted organ transplants.
Jehovah's Witnesses once did not accept any component at all of blood, but now they allow blood fractions.
Why should these babies die now for lack of a blood transfusion when it is likely that considering their past record, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society will eventually reverse their NO BLOOD doctrine, claiming 'New Light' from their God?
These babies should be allowed to live to see that day and not suffer because their parents are under the dubious control of a destructive Cult that is the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Julie, Leicester,

Alas, why should children pay such a dear price for their parents' religious blinkers? I hope the courts will allow doctors to decide for all children best interest.

Elena, Athens, Greece

the definition for abstain is 'to hold oneself back voluntarily, esp. from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually fol. by from): to abstain from eating meat. '

these babies cannot voluntarily do anything and so have to have their best interest of living looked after. and if that means going against the parents religious views then i think that is acceptable.
can anyone honestly say that they have never cut themselves and sucked the wound so it stops bleeding, or bitten your mouth and tasted blood....or has any parent not held their childs thumb in their mouth after a paper cut or accident?- these things are all normal and ingesting blood. If it heals someone then how can it be wrong?
how can any parent justify putting the life of one child,let alone six in danger?

kerry, england,

Do I take it that those vilifying the parents love these babies than their natural parents? I thought that these are adult, competent and mentally capable parents who love their babies more than anyone else here, and that is the very reason they objecte to the so-called "selective reduction" in the first place. What makes you believe that blood transfusion, to which the take strong exception, is would be the panacea of the condition? The arrogance of some people surely knows no boundary, and that has invariably been one of the major causes of conflict in society. We must all shape up or be doomed to perpetual antagonism.

Stephen Lwetutte, London, United Kingdom

Why do these stupid people have babies when they know that sometime in their little lives they will have to have a blood transfussion!!. How could they look at their beautiful helpless babies and deny them the right to live is beyond me.

Mrs Mary E A Webster, Worcestershire,

In 10 - 15 years time will the parents of the two babies who suffered such an injustice as to be given the chance to live tell said babies that they didnt want to give them the care they needed to survive. I think not.

Adam, Blackpool,

This couple obviously love there children and want whats best for them as well as sticking to Divine Principles. What the medical profession did by inflicting a blood transfusion on those babies was no more than rape in my opinion.The parents have a right to bring there children up according to Gods standards and ways after all as the Creator of man shouldnt he know whats good and bad for us its been proved time and again about the Dangers of blood transfusions and all the diseases it brings.Instead of condemning these people why not look into there beliefs and understand the God that they have come to know and love.I wish them all love and peace and i hope they win there fight to Religious freedom.

debbie, nottinghamshire, england

The Court should act in the best interests of the children but when doing so, should take into account the parent's views. I certainly do not advocate the parent's stance but I do feel that the Court was wrong when failing to allow the parents to have their say before ordering the children to be taken into protective custody.

Kathryn, Luton, Beds

Reading press reports like this, convince me more and more that all religions are evil and rotten to the core. And as an orthodox atheist one feels safe.

Easterby, Nuernberg, Germany

Having operated on JW infants myself, I remember literally sweatng one drop for each one of blood lost during the surgery. This was because I promised the father not to use blood transfusion. I did that because of the sincere
relationship I enjoyed with the parents, and because I believe (as a Libertarian and a Christian) in the sovereignty as well as sanctity of the individual. That the state intervene between a mother and baby is not their juristiction. The family must have the authority to make medical decisions such as 'DNR' directives. Why did this controversy get outside of the hospital nursery?

Robbie, madison, Mississippi

After some research, I have come up with this:
Non-blood treatment is generally considered by medical professionals to be "good medicine" , less hazardous to the overall health of the individual. Blood transfusions are seen as organ transplants - with their own unique possibilities of danger to the recipient.
Tiny babies such as these should only have micro-samples taken for blood tests. They also should have had proactive treatment given to possibly avoid this situation even arising,
Legal issue - Supreme Court of Canada decided (in a very similar case, 1996 I think) that when health officials believe that the life of a child is in danger due to a parent refusing a recommended treatment, then government agencies can remove the child legally from its parents and be given that treatment. BUT ONLY AFTER A HEARING is held to allow both sides to present their case.
The hearing was held AFTER the babies were siezed - and then they were returned to the parents care.

J. Klassen, Winnipeg, Canada

There may be a case against blood transfusions under the Law of Moses but that has been superceded by the commands of Christ. There were strict food laws under the Old Testament but in the New Peter was clearly told that all foods are now clean. The references in Acts of the Apostles relating to blood were given as a concession to Jewish Christians who found it hard to be completely free of their old traditions. Gentiles are completely free of such constrainsts. J.W.'s have no authority from Scripture to deny life to infants in need of a blood transfusion.

Keith Lowe, Stourport on Severn , England

John Bailey, of course the witnesses interpret the bible. I have interpreted what you have written, and no doubt you will of what i write.

On your eralier points, I suspect that the danger (to the children) of not having a blood transfusion was far greater than the associated risks of havign one.

Finally a persons faith may be that which carries them through life, however in this case, it would also have been the thing that put an end to the lives of these children - who incidently have not had the oppourtunity to decide on their faith. So it is actually medcial science and commom sense which has given these children life where relgiuos beliefs would have denied it to them! We should really ask our selves the question, are these people any better than islamic funadmetalists who decide we should die as we are infidels!?

Charles, Southampton,

It's ironic that a fetus with blood pumping in and out of a miniature little heart inside an incubator of skin is denied the right to existence by abortion, yet a "baby" in the delicate fragile first days of premature birth while housed in a mechanical womb suddenly is granted rights and protection by the government. Is not a primary purpose of government to provide safety and security for the weak and mistreated? Should any one have the right to take life from the innocent and the indefensible?

David Banker, Atlanta, USA / Georgia

Science has enabled us to live longer, eat non-perishable foods and manipulate organic & man-made chemicals to ensure us a lazier psuedo-healthier lifestyle. Consequently we are unnaturally overpopulating the world and poisoning ourselves and other life forms in the process. I believe these statements are facts.
With this in mind perhaps denis from Cardiff, who bluntly states that letting nature take it's course is "lethal lunacy", will take a deep breath and think about the power our modern science is giving us. And how taking nature out of the system is perhaps dangerous... we have afterall lived solely through nature since life on earth began.
Are we now so blinded by results that we ignore the true picture.
The doctors acted in their own interests not in those of the family they betrayed.
For the record I'm not a Jehovah's Witness.

louise Beard, Iida, Japan

Before I read J Jones' comment, I had never realised that Jehovah's Witnesses' much-derided unswerving decision to never accept blood transfusions has protected them from contracting hepatitis and HIV/ADS from that source, while sadly many other people have suffered in this way. Whether or not it is a God offering them this protection is open to much debate, if practices were safer maybe infections would not occur however the fact does remain they have been protected by their decision in that aspect. On the other hand, how many devotees have needlesly died by refusing transfusion in other life-threatening situations? And what if when they did die, there was no God or "Heaven" anyway? Arguments pertaining to "spiritual" well-being beyond the physical fail to take into account this is not a proven, guaranteed or even documented event and relies on a naive blind faith akin to believing in Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny.

davey b, wigan, lancs

Whilst I think the hospitals decision to tranfuse the babies was right - I think it should have been more delicately handed with the parents. What I would like to know is what would have happened after the transfusions - would the babies have just been handed to the parents. What the doctors don't appreciate is the ethical dilemma of how these children will feel if when they are older and they hold these religious beliefs? Thankfully, they will be alive to appreciate the actions of the medical team, but might feel like they had been violated, and suppose that they may in their own right bring an action for this "violation". Its surpising that in this day and age parents cannot refuse treatment for their children, but on the other hand a girl who is under 16 can obtain an abortion without her parents even knowing. What if any balance can be achieved in the child's "best interests" and a parents right?

Danielle, Gateshead, UK

This is a hard case but I do feel for the parents, blood transfusion may be a simple matter for many but it is not for these parents (nor is it for anyone who has contracted a disease spread by blood transfusion!). I think that the law has been abused by not allowing them to argue their case before the transfusions took place. There was obviously enough time to get a court order, what would five minutes of their pleading have meant. We are far too ready to allow self appointed 'medical ethicists' - many of whom realistically have less training in ethics than I do (I at least studied ethics as part of philosophy at University). Finally, I should add that I have been a blood donor for over 22 years but still feel for the parents!

Mark, Cardiff, Wales

I actually think the hospital was right to do what they did. However, hospitals in North America need to start doing something similar when parents of certain faiths (or none) decide to circumcise their babies, which is actually unnecessary harm done by medical practicioners at the behest of ignorant parents who think it has some kind of benefit (usually they think it "looks better"). Let's be consistent here.

FB, Stirling, Scotland

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an avid reader of your online newspaper. However, there is a gross inaccuracy in this article: Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians.

The main reason is this: Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As far as I know, Jehovah Witnesses do not share this belief.

I have no hard feelings towards Jehovah's Witnesses at all, but Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians...and this group is not part of the Church.

Revd Paul Vrolijk, Bristol, UK

It's ironic that two days before these children were transfused the Canadian Government was running a public notice on how to claim compensation for people who had contracted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions.Though most have died .I wonder how they would view a blood transfusion now .Maybe they would have choosen alternative treatment that is available.I also notice now that in the U.K. you also have a form of human mad cow disease in your blood banks according to the Weekly Guardian.

Glenn Reid, Oshawa , Canada

Is it not written, "Thou shalt not commit murder"? You stumble over the letter of the Word and have not the Spirit of God. Every true believer of Jesus Christ must let scripture interpret scripture otherwise they are unskillful in the handling of God's holy Word.
It is obvious that Leveticus 17:10-14 talks of eating uncooked meat and drinking of blood as pagans are fond of. What has it got to do with blood transfusion for the dying and helpless?
Remember how Matthew 7:12 says "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you ..." OR even better, read Matthew 12:1-8.

John, Cambridge, UK

let us all pray ,what ever choice of religion we make, that these parents and children find a peaceful end to this so soul searching time

lesley, ipswich, suffolk

Yes, a parent does, and should, have the right to do what is best for his/her child. However, I do not feel that a parent does, or should, have the right to do what is worst for his/her child. Should a parent refuse to allow a child to have a blood transfusion and, thereby, put the child's liife in mortal danger, the parent is undeniably doing what is worst for the child. Furthermore this would be an act which goes directly against the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". Everyone should be able to follow his/her faith but not have the right to impose it upon anyone else, including children. Two of my very best friends are Jehovah's Witnesses and we agree not to discuss the touchy subject of blood transfusion. However, they do not knock on strangers doors, they do not impose their religion on others and they are happy to be the closest of friends with a devout atheist - me!

Marcel Arnall, St. Barths,

has anyone realised that the hospital were asking this set of parents to deliberatley KILL some of their children for the sake of the others when in the womb? Their absolute thirst and want of life meant they gave ALL SIX the chance to live if they could!

Then again when faced with life or death of their precious children, they chose to give them a better chance of life, by refusing blood, something we all know has huge complications and risks involved. For a young sickly baby who has little immunity, would you risk giving it such a thing?

Instead they chose the myriads of other medical ways of treating such a problem.

Many have the choice what they medically except or not as treatment and I am sure there are things we ALL would choose not to have, whether it be because we are allergic to it, perhaps don't agree with the methods it was produced by, eg animal testing, but would then not dream of criticising that choice! Likewise we should not do so with this medical choice.

Philippa, London,

'Nothing outside a man can make him "unclean" by going into him. Rather, it is what come out of a man that makes him "unclean".' (Mark 7:15 NIV).

sam tippetts, london,

any adult can do what they want - but they have no right to inflict their lethal lunacy on innocent and vulnerable infants.

denis, cardiff, uk

We can all learn a lot from the Old Testament but have these parents never heard of Jesus Christ, the New Covenant? As a Christian myself, my understanding is that He came to earth to save us from much of the blood thirst talked about in the Old Testament.

HD, London, UK

It amazes me that all this religious hypocisy is still prevelant today. If your child was near death and you had life or death descion you would to make the descion not the doctors. If the doctors went to court to take your rights as parents you would fight tooth and nail to get them back. Why is it any different for these parents to want these same rights? Because they are Jehovah;s witnesses and you don't agree with their religion? Rights as parents to make decsions for their children are held up in most all courts in the world. Doctors are supposed to make the treatment that is best for the person as a whole. That includes their religious beliefs. When they decide to play God and make what they claim are the right decsion and say the parents is the wrong choice, they are playing God. Treat the whole person is what they should be doing. this includes allowing the parents the right to make the decsions for their under age children. If they die its on the parents not the doctors. So who answers to the higher court in the end?

R. Kilbourne, West Monroe, NY

My heart goes out to the parents who hold sincere beliefs. I cannot critice their sincerity of belief. But I do believe them to be wrong. Decisions on the treatment of minors is a matter of discussion between parents and doctors. At all times the interests of the children must be paramount. Who speaks for the children? In receiving blood they face being shunned by their community. But they have a better chance of life. Surely it is in the childre's best interest to rceive the care based on blood transfusion. The recent procession of cases through the courts of medical ethics cases takes the decision making out of the medical into the legal arena. Is this the way to go. Statute law must be enacted to ensure that children are protected in these cases so that there is no procession through the courts, however sad that may be.

Graham Hurry, Stourbridge, England

There are three commands in the bible book of Acts alone to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD. Likening such a sin to the worshipping of idols and to committing fornication.

Having it injected into your veins would hardly be adhering to those biblical warnings. Would it?

And does a parent of a child not have the right to do whats they think is best for thier child until they are of an age of understanding?

John, London,

If Jehovah's Witnesses want to try and use scripture, even if it is to justify erroneous doctrine and practices, how can they get around Christ's words when He was challenged for healing a man on the Sabbath Day; "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill." (Mark 3.4) I fail to understand how the denial of life saving medical intervention can ever called a Christian act.

Wynn James, Knaresborough, UK

If a doctor told you not to eat a certain food, you would hardly instead go and have it pumped into your veins would you? Jehovah's witnesses not only view that scripture in Leviticus as a command from God, but also the scripture in Acts 15:28,29 which tells us to ABSTAIN from blood. This word doesnt mean we can pick and choose when we do or do not have blood, in whichever form. We do not partake at all.

JW, London,

As a religious person myself, I believe that religion can be a wonderful and fulfilling aspect to our lives.

However, I am of the opinion that the main principal of most religions is love, and what love is greater than that of a parent?

If I had just given birth, my number one priority would be for the safety of my children, and I would want to prolong and make comfortable their lives in any way, no matter how it disagreed with my religion.

How is refusing treatment for innocent babies because of religious beliefs any different from terrorists killing innocent people because of thiers?

Natasha, Merseyside,

As usual the media fails to report that these Jehovah's Witness parents wanted medically respected non-blood alternate treatments used on their children. Bloodless treatments are being widely used in the USA successfully and are connected to respected major hospitals. Your article makes it look like these parents wanted everyone to sit by wringing their hands waiting for nature to provide a miracle. They simply wanted respected medically sound non-blood procedures that are being used successfully in by up to date medical facilities.

J Stewart, Mazatlan, Mexico

I don't understand how this religion can be legal.


The only good thing that it does is to put all the hateful, self-righteous, narcissistic weirdos together in one place so the rest of us can stay away from them.

Dana, Chicago,

As mentioned bellow to take that scripture on face value does seem to contradict. That was the first thing i thought when i read this artice.
However there are other scriptures which says - 'abstain from blood'.
If a doctor advised you abstain or from or not drink alcohol for health reasons. Would that mean that having it directly put into your veins would do no harm?
Those who have commented here are to be comended for having a passionate view - i would advise those same people to raise this issue next time Jehovah's Winesses call and give them a chance to show and explain their point of view- not to convert or "bible bash" simply allow you to make your own mind up! - The brochure all about blood is brilliant.
As G.Hicks mentioned earlier it is understandable the negative views of people. This is a tragic story and those parents will mourn. But there are higher issues involved and just as you want the best for children physically, JW parents want the best spiritually also!

C.W, Leeds,

A transfusion is the same as eating blood.In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously.Would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command repeated at Acts 15:29 to "keep abstaining from blood"?
Also what of the millions of people who die because of accepting blood transfusions? And the number of people that willingly let their sons & daughters die in wars?
JW's know that God always knows what is best for them and they will continue to follow his guidelines.

Denise, London, United Kingdom

People are so ignorant when the emotive subject of blood transfusions and minors rears its head. The general public appear to be willing to accept any form of blood medicine without question. Anita Roderick of The Body Shop empire sadly contracted hepatitis C through a blood transfusion. She is one of millions who have been maimed through the reckless use of blood i.e. HIV Aids/ bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE etc. I think Jehovah's Witnesses are right not to compromise their beliefs. In the long run their God has protected them from one of the biggest killers of modern medicine.

J Jones, North Wales,

It seems whenever things like this happen to Jehovah's Witnesses the media has something to say. Religions such as Islam have far worse traditions yet no one batters an eyelid. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians but unlike Christians in general they apply what they learn, no matter how difficult the decision may be. They make fantastic parents and would happily die for there children to keep them safe. These rare circumstances are very unfortunate and my heart goes out to the parents of the young ones. Jehovah's Witnesses are at the forfront of non-blood research and open to ANY suggestion which doesn't involve direct blood transfusion, which in this day and age, in most circumstances is not necessary. Before you start judging these poor parents and Jehovah's Witnesses in general I ask you to take the time to find the facts first.

Nathan , London,

once again society needs to try and balance the beliefs of parents against the wishes of those not able to make decisions for themselves. The parents are able to decide on blood tranfusion, but the bigger picture revolves around the ability the children concerned to make decisions for themselves. If they were adults would they rather die than have blood tranfusion? ditto for adoption of kids by same sex parents.

nicholas okpeku, cardiff, wales

Amzazing! It's OK to abort the babies before birth - and no one bats an eyelid - in fact people fight for the right to abortion - but now that they are born (prematurely) it all changes.

Lets get one thing straight. The parents are not against medical treatment as one commenter implied. The only Levitical laws that are used are ones that were re-iterated in the 'New' testament.

And can anyone guarantee 100% that a blood transfusion would save these childrens lives? Blood transfusions are not a miracle cure-all!

Alex Mcgregor mentioned that 'unless the treatment is unproven or has harmful side effects' - I would suggest that you read up on the side effects of blood transfusions.

B J, London, UK

As one of Jehovahs Witnesses I know how difficult it is for people to understand our stand on Blood, If people who do not have the same beliefs as I have examine the issue of blood transfusions, they will find the terrible problems that are and are increaseingly being linked to them. I also need to point out that this is fundemental in our beliefs that we should not except blood (Acts 15:28,29), however that doesnot mean that we do not love our Children and only want the very best care for them.

Gran. M. Hicks, Llanarth, Ceredigion, Wales, UK

Seems to me the JWs have very little understanding of scriptural principles or the fact that the "drinking of blood" as described in Leviticus was nothing to do with lifesaving medical intervention and everything to do with abstaining from certain pagan practices which were prevalent at the time. Who decided to recognise this cult as a bona fide religion anyway?

Michael, York,

Since when did having a blood transfusion amount to '"eating blood". "Eating" is a very specific word - if God had intended this to be wider surely he would have said so?

John Bailey points out that JWs "do not interpret the Bible, they take it for just as it is, the word of God". Well there appears to be some very wide "interpretation" at work here.

Simon, Newcastle upon Tyne,

The doctors didn't 'murder' two of the young babies, they died naturally as they couldn't save them in time. A doctors job is to save lifes, and if it would have meant sacrificing one or more of the unborn children to strengthen the others so that they might have a chance of survival, then that is what a doctor must do. When medical ethics crosses with religious ethics it is a very difficult situation both medically and legally but action must be taken to preserve the lives of those they can, particularly with children who can't accept or deny treatment for themselves.

michelle, oswaldtwistle, uk

I tend to believe that religion, or rather the interpretation therof by what I would term intolerant fanatics, is more often than not the basis for so many evils and conflicts throughout our existance (Just look around in recent time -Northern Ireland, Palestine, Muslims & Christians etc). If we all repected one anothers views and showed more tolerance then it would be such a different world. Having said that in this case I have to agree that the babies cannot make such a judgement on the faith they were born into and in the case of JW's this has been shown time and again that they are willing to sacrifice their children for the sake of THEIR beliefs, NOT those of the children. I would have to agree that the state took the right decision. Their constitution allows freedom of religion but surely this must apply to those in aposition to make an informed judgement. I doubt they allow infantcide, which to me this is.

Gerard Keating, London,

Alas, why should children pay such a dear price for their parents' religious blinkers? I hope the courts will allow doctors to decide for all children best interest.

Elena, Athens, Greece

Superstitious rubbish in this day and age still leading to the death of children.

Eike-Henner Kluge comment say it all...

F.S.SUMMERS, TORONTO,

One of the many problems religion causes. How these parents can put their unproven illogical beliefs above the health and survival of their own children shows they are unfit to look after them. I believe that parents should generally have total control over what happens to their own children but not when religion contradicts intelligence as it has done here.

Eleanor, London, England

Oh dear,

Religion and Society conflict - AGGAAAIIIINNNNN!!!!

DavidN, Melbourne, Australia

Little seems to be made of the Doctors' willingness to murder a random two of the unborn babies. I find that strange with so much emphasis being put on ethics. Let us hope that all suvivors now survive and that the transfused duo's lives are not blighted by the transfusions.
It seems not that long ago that Canada was in the throes of a dirty blood scandal. Long forgotten I expect.

J Jones, South Wales,

Reading the quote from Leviticus, I assume that all Jehovah's Witnesses are vegetarians, since it's completely impossible to remove all blood from a piece of meat.

Rotwatcher, CHELTENHAM,

Before birth, I think I would have agreed with the parents not to have had any of the foetuses removed to try and save others; how could one make that choice or know which might survive or not?

After their birth however, they are individuals in their own right even more so and there is no question in my mind that the parents must not be allowed to forbid transfusion.

Transfusion is a recognised medical intervention that could potentially save the lives of these young people and therefore must be allowed, if there is any chance of it improving their survival, even against the wishes of the parents.

Nigel Edward-Few, chesham, bucks

Given that their decision is based on *beliefs* rather than medical science, I would argue that the parents should have no say in their children's medical treatment, unless the treatment is unproven or has harmful side effects. If your kid broke his arm, and the bone was sticking out through the skin and he was in agony... do you think a parent should have the right to say to the doctor "We don't believe in medical intervention for broken bones, We don't think our child should have to rely on these 'pain killers' and you're certainly not wrapping his arm up in plaster. Little Jimmy will be healed through the power of prayer..." before discharging him from hospital?

The very idea is horrific.

Alex Mcgregor, Plymouth, UK

Blood transfusions, and blood product related trearments are all at least fraught with risk, plus at best, the finest way to spread all manner of disease and infection. There are so many alternatives, all of which are non-blood related, eg salient solution, ringer's lactate. The latter are sterile, CHEAP to produce, and carry no risk.
If the public in this country knew how much (in millions of '£') is made annually from the donation of blood, probably the majority would quite rightly refrain.

Lastly a person's faith is that which carries them through, not just the day, but through life; making them far richer individuals. It is a great pity that all whom scream in outrage, appear to cry out in ignorance, due to lack of knowledge of the Bible. Incidently the 'Witnesses' do not interpret the Bible, they take it for just as it is, the word of God.

John Bailey, Putney, London

Quite right the lives should be saved. The babies once born need protection and have no choice over their parents religion. Allowing them to die over a learned response to scripture would be murder.

P S Simon, London, UK

They( parents) have no right to speak for their children ,if they won`t have blood transfusion they dont have too but i feel they cant speak for the babies.
Phoooey on their belief.
the biblical line 17:10 has nothing to do with blood transfusion.....It applies to eating human flesh.
they better study their bible .
I am catholic and dont beleive in half the things we were taught about the bible.I take some and leave some.
Oh by the way my daughter has triplets.She will let them chose their religion.

Marie , victoria bc.,

Religion and one's belief would always be invoke an uproar from outsiders when subject to the harsh test of reality during its interpretation.whilst I do not condone the act of the family for refusing their babies the blood transfusion,I fully understand their stance ,but they must also be prepared to pay for the consequence of their denial be it by the hospital fighting back or a criminal charge against them and at worst the guilt of being a possible contributory factor of their children's death.

M.Sowemimo, Lagos, Nigeria

The Lord shed his precious bllod to save us.
Whenever a blood donor gives up their own blood to help others they (whether they realise it or not) are following Christ's instruction in Matthew 25.40 - what you did for the least of these, you did for me.
When a blood donation is rejected, it seems to me to be tantamount to rejecting Christ's own sacrifice.
Pray for the babies and their misguided parents.

CA Metcalfe, Essex,

in the uk the moral arguments have been well rehersed and in this situation the courts would act in the best interests of the children not the parents, allowing the doctors to transfuse and saving their lifes on the basis that they are unable to make a meaningful informed decision of their own. Afterwards, hopefully the parents can be reconcilled and supported emmotionally though this difficult period.
In essessence it is the duty of a doctor to act in the best interests of their patient ( which should take into account their expressed wishes if possible.) not their religion.

Dr D Watson, Blackburn,

But Jehovah's Witnesses now permit organ transplants, and organs are plump with blood. Years ago the Witnesses said that organ transplants were "cannibalism;" now they're OK.

Nathan Knott, Seattle, WA, USA

What the government did is unacceptable.It was wrong to force the blood on the kids. In the world we are leaving in- people care only about themselves and not what God wants.(all the time they say they are christians) The family quoted from the bible - a book I think we all need to study for us to understand their viewpoint- and they made it a point to be faithful to their God.What guarantee is there that the remaining kids wont be killed by the blood they were given?How many people have died because of transfussions?The family has a right to follow what Acts 5:29 says"we have to obey God as ruler rather than men" and they know what is in store for them if they obey God...why dont we just listen to them and in the process we might gain useful knowlegde?The government of Canada must be aware of Acts 5:38,39...To the family I say: "The fight is not yours- it is Jehovah's. Keep the faith so you can meet your kids under better conditions, in the new wiorld. I love you and pray for you"

Yvonne Nangu, Rustenburg, South Africa

its a sin to get the infants into.

save their life & let them make the decions for their live in future! Let them decide if they need blood or not if anything wld to take place!

for god sake - we can't even see a stranger dying on the road, we rush for help; so what about these innocent babies!

HARMEET KAUR SACHDEV, Kuala lumpur, Malaysia

This is yet another example of the harm that irrational beliefs can inflict on those too young to decide for themselves. The medical staff's sole priority should always be the welfare of their patient, not the "faith" of the parents and in this case they were right to take the action they did. To deny your child life saving medicine, on the basis of superstition (even if you call it God), is bordering on child abuse and I sincerely hope that the court does not find in favour of the parents.

Neil Carrins, York, UK

l don't believe in religions or their doctrines but l do agree that everyone has the right to practice their religious beliefs provide they do no harm to others and do not impose their religion on society.

In this case the child is incapable of making a choice of accepting blood transfusion and living or abiding by their religious doctrine and potentially dying.

A child born into a relgion and raised by their parents into the doctrine of that religion do not always accept and follow it themselves when old enough toe xercise self choice.

In this case the transfusion was the right thing to do

mark carter, perth, australia

Witnesses have changed their view on blood many times, and each time you are cut off from fellowship if you don't abide by whatever new rules they make up. I know, as I used to work at their Brooklyn headquarters. I feel sorry for this family!

Randall Watters, MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif

A child is not born a Jehovah’s Witness or any other religion, religion is a set of beliefs that someone obtains (or is force fed). Richard Dawkins belives that to say any child is a 'x', where x is a religion, is a form of child abuse, and i am inclined to agree. To stand back and allow these children to die based upon their parents beliefs would have been a horrendous and unethical act. A childs right to life must surely come