Well, the article also says:
Quote:
Doctors treating children can obtain court orders to override the wishes of both child and parents, if they believe treatment to be in the best interests of their patient.
But in practice, this rarely happens, as most Jehovah's Witnesses accept their children are not old enough to make an informed decision about faith.
|
So it sounds like the parents would've let one of the newborn babies receive blood if it'd been necessary.
The question of what the doctors should do is interesting though. Most societies these days place a lot of emphasis on respect for the individual, including his or her religious beliefs and attitude towards life/death. Thus, if a person chooses to refuse treatment for himself or herself, then doctors generally respect that. (Hospitals have Do Not Resuscitate agreements for people who want them, right?)
I don't believe people should have the right to refuse treatment for other people though, even for their own children. So if one of the kids had needed a blood transfusion, I would support the doctors if they chose to give the child blood over the parents' objections.