Fundamentalism is bad for your health: Jehova’s Witnesses edition.


In early January sextuplets were born in a Vancouver hospital. Born after 25 weeks of gestation, the survival rate for the babies was not incredibly high — for single births the survival rate is about 80%, and it’s even lower for multiple early births.

Since then, two of the babies have sadly died.

And were it not for the actions of the BC government, more of the babies would have died. See, the parents are Jehova’s Witnesses, and they don’t believe in blood transfusions. Three of the sextuplets were seized against the will of the parents, and two of them were given transfusions.

The parents are upset, saying that their religious freedoms have been trampled on. They’re right, but it doesn’t matter, as the government’s duty to protect its citizens trumps the individual’s religious freedoms in Canada. In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled on a similar case, stating

while the right to liberty embedded in s. 7… may very well permit parents to choose among equally effective types of medical treatment for their children, it does not include a parents’ [sic] right to deny a child medical treatment that has been adjudged necessary by a medical professional and for which there is no legitimate alternative.

See, in Canada you have the freedom to believe in whatever religion you see fit. But when you try to shield your unwilling children behind the cloak of religion when they’re dying, the government has a duty to protect them. You can choose to pull the wool over your eyes and believe that the Bible forbids blood transfusions (erroneously, some biblical scholars say), but to do it to your children when they don’t have that choice…

As Phil Plait says,

There are so many reasons to fight fundamentalist religion. Your very life — and the lives of your kids — should be at the top of that list.

Hat tip to the Bad Astronomer for the headline ripoff. :-)

  1. #1 by Chad on 06 February 2007 - 12:03 pm

    I will be a teeny bit pedantic here, but my opinion is that saying “the government’s duty to protect its citizens trumps the individual’s religious freedoms…” isn’t exactly right. I think there is an important distinction that must be made by noting that the duty is to protect those who are not able to knowingly make their own informed decision.

    In this case, the babies (or other children) are certainly unable to make their own informed decision. I think (hope?) few would argue that the parents themselves should be able to refuse treatment.

  2. #2 by Brad on 06 February 2007 - 12:09 pm

    Ah yes, that’s what I meant. I’m pretty sure that the courts have said that adults can refuse treatment all they want. Children can’t, and parents can’t refuse life-saving treatment for their children.

(will not be published)