Newborn blood tests against God's Will

[Wickett]

It amazes me at this day and age that there are parents that wouldn't take the precautions to protect their children, especially when you consider the infant mortality rate in other portions of the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16846962/




WAHOO, Neb. - Ray and Louise Spiering wanted to observe a period of silence after their daughter Melynda’s birth, but what they got was an uproar.

To the Spierings, Nebraska’s requirement that newborn babies undergo blood screening within 48 hours of birth is an infringement on their religious beliefs and their right to decide what’s best for their four children.

The couple attend a fundamental Christian church and follow some teachings of the Church of Scientology. Louise Spiering said they wanted “that balance of our beliefs included into the births of our children.”


It’s taken them and another set of parents to the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Legislature in a drive to make the newborn screening law more flexible.

The mandatory test, in which a few drops of blood are drawn from a baby’s heel, screens for dozens of rare congenital diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.

Test mandatory in four states
Nebraska is one of four states — along with South Dakota, Michigan and Montana — that don’t let parents opt out of the testing.

The Spierings wanted to avoid loud noises after Melynda’s birth, and also reduce the pain she experienced in order to protect her physical and mental health. The concept comes from the Church of Scientology — minimizing talking around someone who is in pain, said the Rev. Brian Fesler of Minneapolis, a regional representative for the church.

The church teaches that words spoken during moments of pain and unconsciousness affect physical and mental health later in life, he said. The church encourages silent birth, in which those attending avoid talking.

But the church doesn’t discourage parents from having their children tested, Fesler said.

Test opposed on religious grounds
The Spierings, who apply some tenets of Scientology to their faith, took the silent birth concept a step further. They believe newborns are in pain for at least 3½ days, and don’t want blood drawn — which they believe would cause more pain — for at least that long.

They asked for seven days to complete the testing to avoid any unforeseen problems, although they would have preferred to skip the test altogether.

The state insisted, and in September a federal judge upheld the law as constitutional. The judge, however, granted the Spierings an eight-day waiting period while the case was pending, so their daughter was not tested within 48 hours.

Along with the Spierings, Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha are also fighting the test, in their case because they believe the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood. According to the book of Leviticus, “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” and ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life, they said.

‘Something precious ... in the sight of God’
Children’s blood is “something precious in my sight and in the sight of God and not to be tampered with lightly,” said Mary Anaya, who gave birth to the youngest of her nine children in Iowa to avoid the test.

In 2003, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against the Anayas. They turned to state Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha to introduce a measure for a religious exemption.

Armed with a petition including about 100 signatures, Mary Anaya and Louise Spiering testified Thursday before the Legislature’s Health and Human Services committee.

Health officials testified that the requirement is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs.

“Some parents may not comprehend the risks they are taking with their children’s health,” said Bruce Rieker of the Nebraska Hospital Association.

Screening may reveal serious defects
Many of the diseases covered in the bill are deficiencies, and one, phenylketonuria, can result in severe mental retardation without diet restrictions starting at birth.

One in every 837 babies born last year tested positive for one of the 34 diseases the state tests for, said Julie Miller, manager of Nebraska’s Newborn Screening Program. But the incidence is much lower for the eight most serious diseases, with one in 112,000 having biotinidase deficiency, which can cause developmental delays.

The Spierings say changing the law will give parents better options, whatever their opposition to the tests.

“We just want to lay the groundwork so that other parents have better choices than we did,” Ray Spiering said. “We weren’t so much against the test. We just wanted a short delay. In a sense, we kind of won” when the judge granted the eight-day delay.

But, Louise Spiering said: “There was a very steep cost in terms of the intrusion on our private lives.”

[JCJanko]

So based on religious grounds, the couple wanted to wait slightly longer than the "mandatory" time alotted to get the test done. Of course, only FOUR states make it mandatory anyway, and I don't see any epidemic in the other 46.

What amazes me is the lengths people will go to trample on people's rights, especially a right expressed in the very first amendment to the Constitution. Don't think I am agreeing or disagreeing with the parents' decision. The point is what they have a right to do. People have the right to do many things in this country I disagree with, but I will fight for many of those rights.

[Phatie]

Blood test my @ss. The government is installing RFID chips in the babies to track them by satellite. People are so gullable! No Fkn way would I ever allow that. Its downright Orwellian.

[Wickett]

uhhh.. ok

[LLFHS]

Anyone ever open a jar of candy expecting to find cool stuff in there, but what they find are a couple of 5-year old mints stolen from a restaurant, a crumpled up gum wrapper, a match, a key to a car that has been gone ten years, and a paper clip? And then you just go "WTF"??

That's kinda what happened when I opened this thread.

[JCJanko]

Eh, I thought it was a decent story about government trampling on rights, but I guess no one cares about that anymore. Well, only religious rights. If the government stopped a porn mag from being published, everyone would be up in arms. To each his own.

[Wickett]

Frankly, I'm more apalled by the parents use of religion over their childs own welfare. While I respect their views, I find the decisions apalling to completely forgo the test. (Delaying the test, which is discussed, is a different deal).

And where's the trampling of rights? It appears that the court system has yet to decide this, and has allowed delaying of the test. It's a pretty delicate balance between respecting these type of religious rights (which should be done), and protecting children from parents.

[Wickett]

Anyone ever open a jar of candy expecting to find cool stuff in there, but what they find are a couple of 5-year old mints stolen from a restaurant, a crumpled up gum wrapper, a match, a key to a car that has been gone ten years, and a paper clip? And then you just go "WTF"??

That's kinda what happened when I opened this thread.

sorry.. guess there should have been a warning label or something

[Phatie]

Anyone ever open a jar of candy expecting to find cool stuff in there, but what they find are a couple of 5-year old mints stolen from a restaurant, a crumpled up gum wrapper, a match, a key to a car that has been gone ten years, and a paper clip? And then you just go "WTF"??

That's kinda what happened when I opened this thread.

I know what you mean man. Its like getting hit in the face by a crumpled up lotto ticket, and throwing it away, only to see on the news that someone on that same street, just minutes later found a crumpled up lotto ticket and won 50 million $, and donated it to charity. I can totally relate to what you're feeling.

[JCJanko]

Frankly, I'm more apalled by the parents use of religion over their childs own welfare. While I respect their views, I find the decisions apalling to completely forgo the test. (Delaying the test, which is discussed, is a different deal).

And where's the trampling of rights? It appears that the court system has yet to decide this, and has allowed delaying of the test. It's a pretty delicate balance between respecting these type of religious rights (which should be done), and protecting children from parents.

The only time I believe religious rights should be trumped is when it is a clear, deliberate danger to the child. For example, sexual molestation. I know people who did not get shots as a baby, let alone this test. I am one of those crazy people that believes like the people who founded the country did: government is a necessary evil that should be controlled by the people, not the other way around. I understand not everyone agrees, but I will always give the citizen the benefit of the doubt before the government.

[Wickett]

well, maybe LL is right. We're not going to figure this out today, so I guess I'll take a nap.

oh, and JC, I don't think you're crazy. (You may be crazy, I'm just not calling you that )

[JCJanko]

I think the other thing you're ignoring is the fact this is only mandatory in FOUR states. Apparently, it isn't much of a risk to 46 states.

[Wickett]

I think the other thing you're ignoring is the fact this is only mandatory in FOUR states. Apparently, it isn't much of a risk to 46 states.

Well, I wasn't ignoring this fact, however I you have a valid point.

[Axxman300]

The couple attend a fundamental Christian church and follow some teachings of the Church of Scientology. Louise Spiering said they wanted “that balance of our beliefs included into the births of our children.”

It's not Scientology, it's Christian or Religious Science, or something like that. Scientologist will get a blood test for their kid, they're not as crazy as these people are.

I would also point out that God made doctors too, you don't have to be Fellini to figure out why.

[Viking]

God put Jeffery Dahmer, Ed Gein and Michael Jackson here too. It doesn't mean that they were all out for the public good.

I don't think that the law in question should be a law, period. I love it when they say that they're passing these laws for our own protection. Didn't Hitler use the same kind of reasoning? Things that make you go, Hmmmmm.