Julie,
In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court stated clearly: "The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. . . . Simply because the decision of a parent [on a medical matter] involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state."—Parham v. J.R.
As you pointed out yourself any treatment involves both risks as well as benefits. Your arguments that the rights of Parents can be over ridden because they do not choose the treatment which the doctor feels has the highest chance of success can not ethically be sustained if the parents merely chooses another form of treatment which the doctor feels has less of a chance of success, As I pointed out in a previous message it is inconsistent for a doctor to tell the patient, or the legal guardian of such, that they have the right of informed consent only if they allow the doctor to make that choice, and in such a case there would be no choice at all. Since there are risks involved in blood transfusions then if such are forced upon a patient without consent either of themselves or their legal guardian then whoever performs such transfusions will be subject to liability and may face a lawsuit by the person or guardian whose rights they violated. If this happened to me I would pursue this course quite aggressively since it would be a violation of my person, dignity, right of free will, and self determination. Again the point that seems to be continually ignored here is that the parents are not denying medical care for their legal dependants, but are only exercising their right of informed consent to choose one form of treatment over another. That is a parent's right, and even more so it is their responsibility.
"The over-ruling in respect of a minority religious belief is extended to over-ruling the whole principle of an adult being allowed to accept or reject a particular form of medical treatment. . . . The State is gradually taking over the function of making decisions for the individual. It is in this way that free countries cease to be free and become totalitarian. It was indeed by the taking-over of the German children into the Hitler Youth movement that freedom and privacy were finally suppressed in Nazi Germany. This is not mere fanciful speculation. Freedom is a precious and comparatively rare possession, to be jealously guarded in those countries where it exists. Any one encroachment on individual liberty is one too many." -God, Blood and Society (1972), by A. D. Farr, p. 115.

Really you are just repeating yourself. What you are saying is that the state always knows best and that it has the right to force people to submit to the view of the majority even against their will, and that there is no room for personal beliefs or choices. You merely give lip service to "informed consent" but then ignore it. How can you say that you respect the beliefs and rights of others if you are not willing to co-operate in any manner or do anything to accommodate such beliefs? What makes this different from a totalitarian state?
Bambootiger