It can be supposed that the parents for moral beliefs or for the love of their children did not take physician's suggestion to abort two for the others to survive. Does this suppose they care for the well being of their little ones and carefully analysed the options for their treatment. The provincial governement under the false pretence of protecting the remaining children (Protecting them from whom...the parents?) decided to seize them and enforce a treatment. Does the PM of BC think he is a physician? Does he pretend to know better. Was a blood transfusion the only solution or Worst was it evident that with or without a transfusion the babies were simply not going to make it. The risks associated with a blood transfusion are also to be considered. Should a child survive what would be the futur consequences of the 'imposed' treatment?
Under the knowledge that a state or province can without a Supreme court ruling seize your children and enforce their personal views of what is right or wrong WHO would want to have children in that context. Democracy and religious rights have to be respected under the Charter of rights. If this is true of the B.C. government which other province or state can impose their personal views on acceptable treatment? Quite a scary scenario.