Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness



J

JaBrIoL

Guest
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2003/nov/14/515859965.html



==================================================================
Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness

By Cy Ryan

SUN CAPITAL BUREAU


CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has been asked to decide if
Valley Hospital Medical Center in Las Vegas was wrong in giving a
blood transfusion to a critically ill baby against the religious
beliefs of the baby's parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Nancy Savage, attorney for the hospital, told the court Thursday
that an emergency situation existed for the premature infant that was
born weighing 2 pounds, 11 ounces.

It administered a blood transfusion and then asked a judge if the
hospital could be named temporary guardian of the child and his twin
brother so they might administer further blood transfusions.

Jason and Rebecca Soto refused to give permission for the
transfusion and were never notified the hospital was going to court to
get an ex-parte order giving it temporary guardianship over the two
children.

Donald Ridley, attorney for the Sotos, argued the hospital had no
right to seek a guardianship.

"These kids had guardians," he said. "The issue was making the
appropriate decision for health care."

Ridley, of Pawling, N. Y., said the hospital, if it was concerned,
should have notified Child Protective Services, which could have acted
as a "buffer" between the hospital and the parents. The twins, born in
June 2001, are now doing fine, the court was told.

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed a friend of
the court brief that said the religion has no objections to
conventional medicine and they do not believe in or practice faith
healing. Attorney Jerry Mowbray said the Witnesses obey a scriptural
directive to "Keep abstaining from blood."

Mowbray, in his brief, urged the court to show "respect for
parental child rearing authority and for religious freedom."

Rebecca Soto, the mother, checked into the hospital nearly a month
before the birth, which was considered high risk. One of the twins
weighed 4 pounds, 13 ounces at birth; the smaller twin was born
apparently stillborn but later recovered a heartbeat.

The hospital decided the smaller baby needed a transfusion; the
parents believed a transfusion was not needed.

After the transfusion was performed, the hospital filed a court
petition asking to be named temporary guardian of both children, which
was granted.

The Sotos were not notified until the next day of the court order.

Two days later Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle agreed to
extend the hospital's temporary guardianship of the smaller boy for 30
days but did not allow it for the bigger boy. No transfusions were
given during the 30 days. The Sotos were represented at that hearing.

Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the
transfusion to protect itself from liability.

Savage said this was an emergency situation and "that's why the
hospital got the guardianship."
 
The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good
doctors..

"JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2003/nov/14/515859965.html
>
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness
>
> By Cy Ryan
>
> SUN CAPITAL BUREAU
>
>
> CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has been asked to decide if
> Valley Hospital Medical Center in Las Vegas was wrong in giving a
> blood transfusion to a critically ill baby against the religious
> beliefs of the baby's parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
> Nancy Savage, attorney for the hospital, told the court Thursday
> that an emergency situation existed for the premature infant that was
> born weighing 2 pounds, 11 ounces.
>
> It administered a blood transfusion and then asked a judge if the
> hospital could be named temporary guardian of the child and his twin
> brother so they might administer further blood transfusions.
>
> Jason and Rebecca Soto refused to give permission for the
> transfusion and were never notified the hospital was going to court to
> get an ex-parte order giving it temporary guardianship over the two
> children.
>
> Donald Ridley, attorney for the Sotos, argued the hospital had no
> right to seek a guardianship.
>
> "These kids had guardians," he said. "The issue was making the
> appropriate decision for health care."
>
> Ridley, of Pawling, N. Y., said the hospital, if it was concerned,
> should have notified Child Protective Services, which could have acted
> as a "buffer" between the hospital and the parents. The twins, born in
> June 2001, are now doing fine, the court was told.
>
> The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed a friend of
> the court brief that said the religion has no objections to
> conventional medicine and they do not believe in or practice faith
> healing. Attorney Jerry Mowbray said the Witnesses obey a scriptural
> directive to "Keep abstaining from blood."
>
> Mowbray, in his brief, urged the court to show "respect for
> parental child rearing authority and for religious freedom."
>
> Rebecca Soto, the mother, checked into the hospital nearly a month
> before the birth, which was considered high risk. One of the twins
> weighed 4 pounds, 13 ounces at birth; the smaller twin was born
> apparently stillborn but later recovered a heartbeat.
>
> The hospital decided the smaller baby needed a transfusion; the
> parents believed a transfusion was not needed.
>
> After the transfusion was performed, the hospital filed a court
> petition asking to be named temporary guardian of both children, which
> was granted.
>
> The Sotos were not notified until the next day of the court order.
>
> Two days later Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle agreed to
> extend the hospital's temporary guardianship of the smaller boy for 30
> days but did not allow it for the bigger boy. No transfusions were
> given during the 30 days. The Sotos were represented at that hearing.
>
> Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the
> transfusion to protect itself from liability.
>
> Savage said this was an emergency situation and "that's why the
> hospital got the guardianship."
 
"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good
> doctors..
>



My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?
 
"JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to

good
> > doctors..
> >

>
>
> My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?


Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a child
from parental neglect?

--Rich
 
"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good
> doctors..

===============
AMEN! The parents would have allowed the child to die to please the
Watchtower Society. I'm happy the child lived. He now has a chance at life
no matter how "controlled" by the WTS it may be.

This should be done in all cases where the parents aren't mentally and
emotionally qualified to make the decision due to religious mania, mental
retardation, religious fundamentalism, emotional disorders, control by a any
cult, religious order or group claiming to speak for "god."
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
 
"JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to

good
> > doctors..


> My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?

=================
The state WILL take the kids and support them until the age of 18 if the
parents refuse to take proper, or at least minimal care of them. Killing
your child by preventing life saving treatments goes beyond religious
beliefs.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
 
[email protected] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good
> > doctors..
> >

>
>
> My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?



Should the state take my kids away if my religious beliefs include
something about the sanctity of incest? What if I exercise the
Biblical admonition to "spare the rod and spoil the child" to the
point that I break some bones? Am I still constitutionally protected
(whatever that means)?

How about if I am part of some goofy cult that believes you need to
starve the "demons" out of a misbehaving child by locking them in a
closet without food or water?

Find a better example of "the constitution being violated".

Mark, MD
 
"~* Yippy *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to

> good
> > > doctors..

>
> > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> > children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> > the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> > constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?

> =================
> The state WILL take the kids and support them until the age of 18 if the
> parents refuse to take proper, or at least minimal care of them. Killing
> your child by preventing life saving treatments goes beyond religious
> beliefs.
> --


Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents.
and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interfere
with the religious beliefs of parents.
 
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to

> good
> > > doctors..
> > >

> >
> >
> > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> > children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> > the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> > constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?

>
> Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a

child
> from parental neglect?
>
> --Rich
>
>


where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion is
limited to parents and not to their children?
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents.
> and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interfere
> with the religious beliefs of parents.

========================
When the religious beliefs of the parents cause the DEATH of the
children,... yes. Once a child is already born you don't have to right to
kill the child using religion as an excuse. That's the law, if you don't
like it you are welcome to leave the USA. Try Iraq, or Palestine....

Will you next start claiming that the bible allows people to sell their
daughters into slavery, so that too should be allowed? Or how about stoning
them to death at the Village Gate if they're disobedient - as Jehovah said
to do?
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion

is
> limited to parents and not to their children?

========================
If an adult JW decides to commit suicide, and many have, to please the WTS
and their KH friends that's one thing. A baby or child is too young and
immature to make such a life and death decision. If the parents are unable
to make a rational decision concerning the child due to religious mania and
fanaticism then the courts should step in and save the child.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be

to
> > good
> > > > doctors..
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> > > children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> > > the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> > > constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?

> >
> > Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a

> child
> > from parental neglect?
> >
> > --Rich
> >
> >

>
> where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion

is
> limited to parents and not to their children?
>
>


Dead children have no religion.

--Rich
 
> Ridley argued that the hospital
> received the guardianship after the
> transfusion to protect itself from liability.


Did ya notice that they got the guardianship
AFTER the transfusion? They had better have
really VERY solid proof that LIFE was in
danger, because taking such action BEFORE
a court order is a liability by itself.

Did ya notice that much more was said about
LIABILITY than about the life-and-death
urgency and proof that it was needed?

Doctor Mark, when a baby is born
underdeveloped, HOW do blood transfusions
really help?

At that immediate time, isn't the amount
of blood less than a high priority for
the infants system?

Aren't there other more pressing concerns
like kidney function and pulmonary dysfunction?

What circumstances would warrant such an
urgent need for a blood transfusion?

Please also comment on the fact that
no other transfusions were in fact ever needed.

Does that indicate anything?

I've read of a few cases where Doctors have
called Child Protection on parents who wanted
a second opinions. In at least one of these
cases, the first doctor was extremely pushy
about their solution being the ONLY one, and
amazingly the second opinion differed and was
proven by the results. It sure seems like some
doctors misuse the Child Protection threat as
a coercive method to squelch parents wanting
a second opinion.

ER nurses sometimes abusively call or threaten
to call Child Protection in order to "ride herd"
or "lord it" over people too. One RN in Missouri
last year made up quite a rediculous fairy tale
and called it in to Child Protection, rather than
follow the doctors directions (relayed by mother)
to have him paged immediately upon arrival.

The target mother was badly chosen.
There is now one less RN in Missouri.

What do you ""know"" about spiral fractures
in kids, Doctor Mark?

Ever heard of Paterson's research from
10 years ago?

Greg in Iowa
 
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "JaBrIoL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be

> to
> good
> > > > > doctors..
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> > > > children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> > > > the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> > > > constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?
> > >
> > > Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a

> child
> > > from parental neglect?
> > >
> > > --Rich
> > >
> > >

> >
> > where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion

> is
> > limited to parents and not to their children?
> >
> >

>
> Dead children have no religion.
>
> --Rich



I see so we are talking about dead children and not lives ones.. got it!
 
[email protected] (Mark) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good
> > > doctors..
> > >

> >
> >
> > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
> > children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
> > the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
> > constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-ass?

>
>
> Should the state take my kids away if my religious beliefs include
> something about the sanctity of incest? What if I exercise the
> Biblical admonition to "spare the rod and spoil the child" to the
> point that I break some bones? Am I still constitutionally protected
> (whatever that means)?
>


It seems, that against the founding father wishes, they can intervene
when ever they want to.


> How about if I am part of some goofy cult that believes you need to
> starve the "demons" out of a misbehaving child by locking them in a
> closet without food or water?
>
> Find a better example of "the constitution being violated".
>
> Mark, MD


Once again, it seem the state will determine what religious pratices
you follow
and which one you shouldn't.
and if they do.. then they are violating a parents right to freedom of
religion.

and amendement should be added therefore to the constition..

only adults have freedom.. your child does not.
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion is
>limited to parents and not to their children?


And that infant had not yet become able to voice its own opinions
on the matter - it was born to parents of a certain religion, but
had not itself made an informed choice of religions. A parent
cannot extend their religious beliefs to their children to the
detriment of a child's welfare.

On the other hand, if a Jehovah's Witness who is not a minor
wishes to refuse transfusions (and comes in conscious enough to
make an informed decision), the hospital will make no effort to
get any kind of court order to contravene their wishes.

If they come in unconscious, the assumption is that they want to
live no matter what any persons accompanying them might say -
unless someone happens to have a living will and medical power of
atty.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents.
>and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interfere
>with the religious beliefs of parents.


No: the parents may believe what they want to, refuse all the
transfusions they want to ... but they can't inflict those
beliefs on children.

If I believed that God told me to kill you, and cops prevented it
and the state locked me up -aren't they interfering with my
religious beliefs?



Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.
 
[email protected] (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>> Ridley argued that the hospital
>> received the guardianship after the
>> transfusion to protect itself from liability.

>
>Did ya notice that they got the guardianship
>AFTER the transfusion? They had better have
>really VERY solid proof that LIFE was in
>danger, because taking such action BEFORE
>a court order is a liability by itself.


The presumption of the courts is that the objective of a hospital
is to save lives.

>Doctor Mark, when a baby is born
>underdeveloped, HOW do blood transfusions
>really help?


Oxygen transport is critical for infants. RBC transport oxygen,
so if the kid is anemic, they aren't getting enough oxgen to
their vital organs (blood is a vital organ ... try living without
it).

Infants, BTW, have a higher concentration of RBC than adults, for
several reasons. For one, they eventually destroy the surplus
and stach the iron for later. Also, it compensates for their
poor lung capacity.

>At that immediate time, isn't the amount
>of blood less than a high priority for
>the infants system?


No.

>Aren't there other more pressing concerns
>like kidney function and pulmonary dysfunction?


Both of which are made worse by anemia, and helped by
transfusions. The best lungs in the world can't help you if you
don't have enough RBC to carry sufficient oxygen.

>What circumstances would warrant such an
>urgent need for a blood transfusion?


Anemia with respiratory distress.

>Please also comment on the fact that
>no other transfusions were in fact ever needed.


If the anemia is due to blood loss at delivery, usually only one
transfusion is needed, to bring the hematocrit back to normal
levels for a newborn. It's an amazingly small quantity of blood
- the usual adult donor can provide transfusions for 6-10
newborns.

>Does that indicate anything?


That there was no ongoing blood loss: no hemolytic anemia due to
blood type mismatches, no intestinal bleeding.



Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.
 
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Greg Hanson) wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > ER nurses sometimes abusively call or threaten
> > to call Child Protection in order to "ride herd"
> > or "lord it" over people too. One RN in Missouri
> > last year made up quite a rediculous fairy tale
> > and called it in to Child Protection, rather than
> > follow the doctors directions (relayed by mother)
> > to have him paged immediately upon arrival.
> >
> > The target mother was badly chosen.
> > There is now one less RN in Missouri.
> >
> > Greg in Iowa

>


I suspect there are some details altered in this little story. In the first
place, nurses and doctors are required by law to report ANY SUSPECTED child
abuse to CPS. No licensing board would suspend a nurse for that action
alone.

Secondly, many patients come to the emergency room saying that "the doctor
said to have him paged immediately on our arrival." We recognize these
statements for the nonsense that they are. If a doctor wants such
notification, he calls US, he doesn't "relay by the mother." Doctors expect
us to do our job--initial assessment, completion of diagnostic studies,
etc., and THEN we call the patient's doctor.

Perhaps this doctor did tell the mother to have him paged, but no nurse
would ever be punished for not doing so.

--Rich
 
"~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion

> is
> > limited to parents and not to their children?

> ========================
> If an adult JW decides to commit suicide, and many have, to please the

WTS
> and their KH friends that's one thing. A baby or child is too young and
> immature to make such a life and death decision. If the parents are

unable
> to make a rational decision concerning the child due to religious mania

and
> fanaticism then the courts should step in and save the child.



Who decides that the parent is making the poor decisions? What if government
decides that YOU are making poor decisions?

If a parent has a religious conviction that they must treat illness with
herbs and spices, or whatever, then can government step in and intervene in
the religious conviction fo the parent? Isn't this a step towards government
making laws respecting an establishment of religion? Which religions can
government intervene upon?

I happen to disagree with the JW parents in this case, but it is their right
of religious freedom that is at stake. And, if they are in danger of losing
their religious freedom, then how long will it be before I lose my right to
religious freedom?

Government has no place in this issue, even if the life of a child hangs in
the balance. What will happen is that government will move pre-emptively to
protect other children from religious fanatic parents, then government will
move again, then again, then again. Eventually government will have moved so
far as to outlaw religion, or severely restrict its practice.

When the parents take the kid to the hospital some day and say that they
have "tried everything," the doctors can then make a determination that the
parents have done nothing of substance to help the child, and call in Child
Protective Services and level abuse charges. The child is ill, it is not
being beaten.