Jabrwock,
As to what you mentioned before about becomeing one of Jehovah's Witnesses; the basic principle is that is doesn't make a difference what you did before you knew what was right. I know a very sweet lady who made bombs during the 1960's for the civil rights movement. A friend of mine was the major drug dealer at one time in this area. People have the right to change when they learn why they should and what is wrong, and people have the right to be forgiven if they show a basis for it. This is for anything. King Manassah in the Bible was one of the grossest sinners with the "blood" of mant innocent victims on his hands, but he was forgiven, but King Saul who sinned relatively far less was not. The difference between the two was the heartfelt attitude.
In a case similar to what we are taalking about here all God, or anyone else can reasonable ask if for each person to do their best. Those of us are past the "age of consent" and if we have chosen to dedicate our lives to God then we are determined to remain faithful even to death. You may or may not know of our record during Germany of World War 2 when our brothers and sisters were identified in the concentration camps by a "purple triangle". Though thousands were arrested and hundreds were put to death, and all each had to do to leave was to sign a piece of paper renouncing our faith very few choose to do so. A few of the SS guards were so impressed that they became one of us after the war.
This is similar to what we are talking about now because what they did then was based on the same principles we have now. The rational behind our choices do not change very much; only the circumstances in which we apply those principles vary. Julie said earlier that a discussion of faith is not appropiate here, but if you want to understand this case, and the topic in general, then you have to consider motivations. No doubt the doctors and the parents want the same thing; to save lives. The question we should ask then is why can't they co-operate? On the one hand you have someone like Julie, who no matter how much evidence to the contrary you point to, will just keep saying that the only treatment possible is to use blood, and on the other hand you have these people who say " We can't accept blood" and who have doctors on their side also who are willing and able to point to established case precedents, and who researched the topic throughly, and even are willing to train the other doctors in what they know, but the other doctors seem to be clones of Julie, as far as their viewpoint is concerned anyway. I admit both that I am not impartial, and that the attitude of the opposing camp has me completely puzzled. Could it be that they are not humble enough to listen to anyone else? No doubt at least some of those folks would consider me to be a religious fanatic but I do talk to people with a different viewpoint than my own, and I acknowledge their right to believe what they want to. Often I ask people not only what they believe, but I ask them "What do you base that belief on, and how did you come to where you are now?" I've had people of other religions talk to me and I told some of them "If you believe you can prove that what you believe is the truth, I am willing to listen." Does that sound fanatical to you? I grew up around Jehovah's Witnesses but I didn't become one until after I was an an adult and living away from home. I worked in a library at that time and researched the pro and cons using the resources there, and I came to what seems to me to be a logical conclusion.
I apologize for getting "preachy" but in a long discussion with anyone I find it helpful to understand where they are coming from, and I assume the opposite is true for others who talk to me. I think that most people are reacting in a purely emotional manner to this issue, but I try to not let that be my first and only reaction.