Jabrwock,
My point was just the opposite: it was the parents who were trying to beat the odds, but not the doctors. The parents wanted all the babies to survive, against the advice of the doctors who twice encourage then to abort two of the babies. After the babies were born the parents still desire for all to live, but the conflict arose because they asked for bloodless medicine in Canada; whereas if they had been in the United States they could have been accomadated whithout any contraversy in one of the bloodless centers, such as at Rainbow. The public autamatically assumed that two of the babies died because they were denied blood transfusions, but according to what I read today a goverment source siad that it wouldn't have helped. The point I was trying to make eariler was that I personally thought that it was ironic that the doctors initailly made a suggestion which would have resulted in the death of two of the children before they were born, but the parents tried to beat the odds and hope for the survival of all six, but then when two of them died anyway shortly after their birth the parents were blamed. That seems illogical to me but understandable when you consider both the media bias, as well as a widespread public prejudice. Is that clear enough?