Julie, you make some remarkable assertations.

"If Canadian law allows duly appointed authority to impose a medical treatment on a minor child to save the child’s life despite parental refusal, then all we can say is that the action is legal." It may also be immoral or unethical.

"Society determines what is right or wrong from a medical ethical perspective." That is the whole problem. Society determines way too much, as evidenced from the decaying morals in today's society.

"Of course legal issues need the support of the Supreme judicial body of whatever sovereign state is involved. From what I’ve read it appears the action taken by hospital administrators in this case is legal." How can this be, when the Supreme Court upheld the parents rights, not the doctor's wishes. It appears that what was done was completely illegal.

"Those premature babies need and deserve the best medical care available in order to give opportunity for them to gain their own self-determination." As posted above, the "gold standard", or "best medical care available" for many, many health care professionals is non-blood care.

"Children also have certain unalienable rights which override parental authority. One of these is a right to life." Then, since you so aptly put this, why would you support the doctors who wanted to abort 2 of them, thereby ending their lives - their right to live?

"The doctors who advised aborting two of the six fetuses were probably making a recommendation based on statistical survivability. In other words, they were trying to save as many of the lives as possible, from a statistical perspective. By aborting two of the six the remaining four would have far greater survivability." Wow, what a turn around from the right to live.

Put it plain and simple: The Supreme Court said the parents rights were to be upheld. The local authority disregarded the Supreme Court ruling, and thereby they violated the ruling. The government DID NOT act in the best interests according to the Court ruling.