I will never understand the kind of dogmatism that places a religious law or belief in a more important position than the very life of your child. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect with rather crude dogmatic assertions.

In a brief application yesterday, Brian Murray, counsel for the HSE, told Ms Justice Mary Laffoy that the mother, a patient of Cork University Hospital, was 32-weeks pregnant and her expected babies are severely anaemic.

When advised about the need for a blood transfusion, the mother and her partner had made it clear they objected to the procedure.

Ms Justice Laffoy asked whether the objection was on religious grounds and Mr Murray replied that it was.

It is believed the parents, who cannot be named by court order, are non-nationals and are members of the Jehovah’s Witness Congregation.

And here is where it gets inconsistent and absurd. Not only are they adhering to an unquestioning religious dogma, it is a fundamentally implausible one. How is refusing medical care that has a good chance of saving your babies all that different from abortion? It is no different from watching your son or daughter choke to death from asthma as you withhold an aspirator from them that would save their life. Yet they cling to this absurd belief. Here is the Jehovah’s Witness position on abortion and other activities that are harmful:

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not practice abortion. They shun activities that risk human life, such as driving a car while under the influence of alcohol. They teach high standards of cleanliness, which prevents the spread of infections, diarrhea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, and other diseases.

But if your babies need a transfusion to save their life, it is OK to refuse that and go with a substitute like, say, coke and tomatoes!

The good news is that the court in Ireland saw just a tad differently than the JW’s:

The HSE has said the “potentially critical” nature of the situation meant it had to get the court order now and could not wait until after the babies were born to seek it as that would take time and could risk the babies lives or health.

A consultant said transfusion “is almost certainly going to be medically necessary to save the lives of Babies C & D”.

The refusal of the mother to take Anti-D blood products herself or to allow blood be administered to the babies in her womb has placed the babies at risk of anaemia, which can lead to death, and has also risked them suffering jaundice, which can lead to deafness, cerebral palsy and lifelong severe disability, doctors told the court.

Once again we see that the government is needed to regulate the behaviors of stupid people. I could care less if their religion demanded that they put their babies in harm’s way. The fact is that these “parents” are guilty of being an accessories to attempted murder. Yet it is their religion that will no doubt keep them out of jail. That, and the outdated predominance of the genetic relationship as the immutable connection that defines parenthood. Sheer idiocy.