Post by Icarus on Feb 2, 2007 10:04:09 GMT -5
Parents, province step up blood-transfusion battle
Government withdraws court order, but vows to seize babies again if necessary
VANCOUVER -- It took only moments yesterday for a government lawyer to withdraw court orders that had allowed doctors to give blood transfusions to three babies in spite of their parents' religious objections.
But the legal and religious battle over the babies, who were part of a remarkable sextuplet birth last month to devout Jehovah's Witness parents, is far from over. The government has declared it will act again in the interest of the babies if doctors say it is necessary.
Two of the sextuplets have died. The babies were seized during the weekend. Previously, an ethics committee at Women's and Children's Hospital had met, starting Jan. 12, just five days after the births, to discuss the issues, and doctors had outlined their medical concerns in letters to the court.
Under the B.C. Child, Family and Community Service Act, the government can assume custody of children if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe their health or safety is in danger.
Greg Brown, a lawyer for the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, said in Provincial Court in Port Coquitlam that he was filing a withdrawal form to return the children formally to the parents, whose names are covered by a publication ban.
The three babies weren't physically seized; all four infants have remained under care at the hospital's neonatal ward.
"The children have been returned to the care of the parents and the director [of Children and Family Services] is withdrawing at this time," Mr. Brown said.
He said the babies were seized under court order because "the allegation is that [the parents] would not follow the doctor's recommended treatment.
"We're withdrawing because the medical treatment has been provided," said Mr. Brown, who added that the court was given letters from doctors outlining the medical case for blood transfusions. Family court did not release those letters.
The sextuplets were born Jan. 7, at just 25 weeks gestation, weighing 700 to 800 grams.
Jehovah's Witnesses accept most mainstream medical treatments, but, since 1945, have interpreted Scripture as forbidding blood transfusions.
John Burns, one of two Ontario-based lawyers who have flown to Vancouver to help the parents in their legal battle, wasn't given a chance to make any arguments in court yesterday, but he did manage to get in one line: "We just want to make it clear the parents dispute the self-serving statements which are untested by a hearing."
Outside court, Shane Brady, the parents' second lawyer, said the family will be in the Supreme Court of B.C. in three weeks to seek a ruling that the government acted improperly by seizing the babies without allowing the parents to present their arguments in court.
"The family was demanding a fair hearing before any of this happened, and the government ignored us. So at the family's first opportunity to bring the government to court, what does the government do? They withdraw. They've denied the parents yet again the opportunity for a fair hearing. That's why we've appealed this and have insisted on a hearing in the B.C. Supreme Court," Mr. Brady said.
"They wanted to introduce expert evidence to show that transfusions weren't necessary. These children could continue to be managed with mainstream medical treatment. They weren't given that opportunity. And that's what this is all about, the right to a fair hearing," he said. "The parents love their children. That's not the issue."
He said the issue is not so much about religion as the rights of parents to have a fair hearing before the state takes away from them the right to make decisions on behalf of their children.
"Every parent should be concerned about this," Mr. Burns said.
Asked what the parents will do if doctors call for more blood transfusions before the next court date, he said they hope it will not come to that -- but if it does, they will seek a hearing in court first.
Government withdraws court order, but vows to seize babies again if necessary
VANCOUVER -- It took only moments yesterday for a government lawyer to withdraw court orders that had allowed doctors to give blood transfusions to three babies in spite of their parents' religious objections.
But the legal and religious battle over the babies, who were part of a remarkable sextuplet birth last month to devout Jehovah's Witness parents, is far from over. The government has declared it will act again in the interest of the babies if doctors say it is necessary.
Two of the sextuplets have died. The babies were seized during the weekend. Previously, an ethics committee at Women's and Children's Hospital had met, starting Jan. 12, just five days after the births, to discuss the issues, and doctors had outlined their medical concerns in letters to the court.
Under the B.C. Child, Family and Community Service Act, the government can assume custody of children if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe their health or safety is in danger.
Greg Brown, a lawyer for the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, said in Provincial Court in Port Coquitlam that he was filing a withdrawal form to return the children formally to the parents, whose names are covered by a publication ban.
The three babies weren't physically seized; all four infants have remained under care at the hospital's neonatal ward.
"The children have been returned to the care of the parents and the director [of Children and Family Services] is withdrawing at this time," Mr. Brown said.
He said the babies were seized under court order because "the allegation is that [the parents] would not follow the doctor's recommended treatment.
"We're withdrawing because the medical treatment has been provided," said Mr. Brown, who added that the court was given letters from doctors outlining the medical case for blood transfusions. Family court did not release those letters.
The sextuplets were born Jan. 7, at just 25 weeks gestation, weighing 700 to 800 grams.
Jehovah's Witnesses accept most mainstream medical treatments, but, since 1945, have interpreted Scripture as forbidding blood transfusions.
John Burns, one of two Ontario-based lawyers who have flown to Vancouver to help the parents in their legal battle, wasn't given a chance to make any arguments in court yesterday, but he did manage to get in one line: "We just want to make it clear the parents dispute the self-serving statements which are untested by a hearing."
Outside court, Shane Brady, the parents' second lawyer, said the family will be in the Supreme Court of B.C. in three weeks to seek a ruling that the government acted improperly by seizing the babies without allowing the parents to present their arguments in court.
"The family was demanding a fair hearing before any of this happened, and the government ignored us. So at the family's first opportunity to bring the government to court, what does the government do? They withdraw. They've denied the parents yet again the opportunity for a fair hearing. That's why we've appealed this and have insisted on a hearing in the B.C. Supreme Court," Mr. Brady said.
"They wanted to introduce expert evidence to show that transfusions weren't necessary. These children could continue to be managed with mainstream medical treatment. They weren't given that opportunity. And that's what this is all about, the right to a fair hearing," he said. "The parents love their children. That's not the issue."
He said the issue is not so much about religion as the rights of parents to have a fair hearing before the state takes away from them the right to make decisions on behalf of their children.
"Every parent should be concerned about this," Mr. Burns said.
Asked what the parents will do if doctors call for more blood transfusions before the next court date, he said they hope it will not come to that -- but if it does, they will seek a hearing in court first.
