Medical treatment of premature babies

Back in November Tom Butler, Church of England Bishop, said that it was morally acceptable to withhold treatment from premature babies even if their death results from that.

What a relief that others are not afraid to ensure that treatment is give, I refer to a recent case where a Canadian family had their premature babies taken in to care temporarily to ensure that they had life saving treatment.

I feel sorry for the family that they lost two of their babies but I think that there should be some gratitude on their part for they have been relieved of the responsibility of making a decision [whether to let their babies have a blood transfusion] when it was against their religion (Jehovah's Witnesses] and as a result they cannot be held responsible by the Church Elders and their children's lives have been saved.

What a fortunate situation that they are in, yet this family have an odd way of showing their gratitude. They are planning to sue the Canadian authorities for the action that they took as their opinion is that their children have been violated. They have also asked a court to block any future blood transfusions.

A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses quoted this bible passage:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people," Leviticus 17:10-1

I can see nothing in that passage that forbids blood transfusions, clearly this bible passage has an exception to the consumption of blood yet blood transfusions are not taken orally and the infants have not therefore consumed any blood.

Other bible passages that also relate to this are (according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm)

Genesis 9:4 "But flesh (meat) with...blood...ye shall not eat" I was interested in this so spoke to some JWs today; they do eat meat, but only meat that has been killed appropriately. For example, they will not eat an animal that has been strangled but will eat meat where the animal was bled; thereby minimising the amount of blood left in the meat.

The Times reported today that childminder Elizabeth D'Arcy took on so many toddlers that she did not remember their names and had to physical restrain them by strapping them into car seats.

I note that The Times sensible avoided using the word caring, presumably recognising that whatever Ms D'Arcy was doing, she was not caring for the children.

I find it amazing that she has apparently been "caring" for children for 13 years yet she had not had any unannounced visits by inspectors until a parent informed the authorities that she was suspicious about Ms D'Arcy as a result of being asked to wait outside the house when collecting her child.

Surely with routine inspections there should be scope for the inspectors to turn up unannounced to inspect the premises of a childminder and ensure that care is suitable and kind and that children are not having their human rights violated and are being treated with compassion?