Actually the physician's suggestion was not quite to starve some to death, simply end their lives through abortion to save the others. Doesn't that come back to the same basically. Supreme Court is where the decisions are to be made and not at the provincial level (political and financial implications would be too tempting).
Religion should not deprive children from having an equal chance at life, under some circumstances (abuse or neglect) children need protection from their parents or custodians. This protection can and should be obtained only through Court rulings not simply a PM deciding which option is right. We should not minimize the consequences of imposing a treatment that is not acceptable under the parent's beliefs be they religious or moral. Who's children are they the parent's or the State's.
Not getting into specifics for premature sextuplets what IF the option enforced by the PM is not the right one. If transfusion is the ONLY alternative to save the children but implies that they would have to live with the consequences and risks associated with transfusions would It still be all right? I don't agree.
Should transfusion be the ONLY alternative to save my own life would I then accept a transfusion. NO. Under NO circumstance.
Do I agree to violate the parent's right NO unless the parent is unfit or neglecting their children which is not the case here, and then only through a Judge not a PM.

In this case I believe that a comparison of the religious beliefs which does not accept one aspect of medical treatment can be equated with a possible belief someone else might potentially have regarding the idea of letting children other than the first born starve to death. Jehovah's Witnesses do not reject all transfusions; only those which involve blood. Otherwise they seek the best and all possible medical treatment for themselves, and for all of their children. In this case the parents make the best choices that they could to give each child a chance to live. No doctor could honestly guarantee a 100-percent survival rate with any treatment now known. All anyone, parents or doctors, could do is their best under the present circumstances.

Julie,
"Doctors taking this position have denied the sacrifices of all the martyrs that have glorified history with their supreme devotion to principle even at the expense of their own lives. For those patients who choose certain death rather than violate a religious scruple are of the same stuff as those who paid with their lives for faith in God or who went to the stake rather than accept [forced] baptism. . . . Ours is the duty to save life but we may well question whether we do not also have a duty to safeguard integrity and preserve the few gestures of personal authenticity that continue to occur in an increasingly regimented society. . . . No doctor should seek legal assistance to save a body by destroying a soul. The patient’s life is his own"-The Wisconsin Medical Journal, August 1967, p. 375
"Certainly, the physician’s first thought must be the welfare of the patient. Since life is a gift of the Creator to the individual, the primary decision rightfully belongs to the patient, because the patient is the custodian of that gift. . . . The physician should treat the patient within the dictates of the patient’s religion, and not force his own religious convictions upon the patient."-The Journal of the American Medical Association, September 5, 1966, pp. 794, 795
"Are we then to assume that the courts are willing to assign a different religion to the children than that of their parents, when statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children are reared and indeed follow the same religious denomination as their parents? Would this also not be as much an infringement of religious rights of the children by the courts as those rights which the court is trying to protect for the adults under the First Amendment [of the Constitution] by denying the transfusion over the adult’s objections? Are the courts not assigning in essence a religion to the children if they deny transfusions on religious grounds for adults and permit them for the children of the same adults?"-Forensic Science, July 1972, p. 135.
"If there is a choice of procedures—if, for example, the doctor recommends a procedure which has an 80 per cent chance of success but which the parents disapprove, and the parents have no objection to a procedure which has only a 40 per cent chance of success—the doctor must take the medically riskier but parentally unobjectionable course."-Crime and Delinquency, April 1968, p. 116
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in its July 25, 1990, issue: "Evidence shows that blood products, like other health care resources, are often used inappropriately . . . We conducted a face-to-face survey of 122 general surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and anesthesiologists in three hospitals to evaluate the influence of several clinical and nonclinical factors on transfusion decision making. We found widespread deficiencies in physicians’ knowledge of transfusion risks and indications."
I have to also disagree with your contention, whether stated implicitly or merely implied, that blood transfusions are the best standard of care which offers the best chance for survival. I ask you, please, to do some research of your own on this topic. You could start by using Google to do a search under the topic "bloodless surgery" or something similar. You may be surprised to find that the newest and most advanced centers are on the cusp of the "bloodless" trend. To start with here is one article I found very interesting:
'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion

Techniques first used for Jehovah's Witnesses gaining popularity


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466831/


Thank You
Bambootiger

Julie,
I would like to comment on your statement "Conversely, doctors can guarantee 100 percent mortality if essential treatments are withheld."
I would like to tell you of a personal experience which happened in my family 40 years ago, before the modern bloodless methods we have today were developed. My Father was in a pickup which a train hit, and he was thrown some twenty feet where he landed on his head, breaking his skull, among other injuries. The ambulance rushed him to the Veteran's hospital in Amarillo Texas, and then my Mother was called. My Father was not a religious person but my Mother, though raised as a Catholic, had searched through many religions to find the one that would help her to understand the Bible and how to live by the words therein. So she became one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and when permission was asked of her, then she would not give it so that he would receive blood. The Doctors told her that he would die, and they left him there in the hallway to do so. The nurses were not even allowed to change his bandages without permission from the doctors which they would not give; preferring to watch him die rather than give an alternative treatment. My Mother still had 6 children at home to care for, and she had very little prospects to make a living to support us since she only had an eighth grade education and had no work experience outside of the home. My sister who tells this story says that all the older children were there and they felt as though our Father had a sentence of death, with no hope. My sister was not religious either, and never became one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but for her it was as if an angel suddenly appeared: the doors burst open and a Doctor dressed in white rushed in and without pausing he started giving orders to the nurses who were galvanized into action. If I remember correctly this Doctor had flown all the way from Houston to save my Father's life. The other Doctors said that he would die, and when he didn't die they said that he would never wake up from his coma, and when he woke up they said that he would never walk. Then one day, according again to my sister, a black nurse came into his room and she was holding a broom. The nurse held out that broom to my Father and said "Are you just going to lay there? I need help!" My Father was a very kind man who never lied, or doubted the word of others, and he always helped other people when he could. So he managed to get off that bed and though he was very wobbly, he took the broom: proving for the third time that most of the doctors were wrong.
I have a lot of respect for Doctors, but they are still human and can not guarantee a hundred percent of anything, and no Doctor can resurrect a person who dies. Only one person can do that. People are often hailed as heroes if they give their life for their country, but that is not who they received their life from, that isn't who they owe it too, and no country can return a person life.
Bambootiger

Question here is:
Is it all right for a provincial governement to impose his views without court order.
Do the parents feel violated in their rights to opt for the treatment they deam best for their children
Will the children if they survive feel violated in their rights. Is it all right to save a life and loose one's soul as so well expressed by Bambootiger.

In Canada we have the Charter of Rights. Luckily Supreme Court protects abuse from provincial or other legislature of infringement on the Charter of rights. I do not know what parents believe but they indicated by their lawsuit that they feel violated by this intervention. Does it matter if you or I believe that parents think or do not think the babies souls are endangered. The fact remains 'parents refused transfusion and no one but Supreme Court should have the right to impose it by a ruling'.

Julie,
Legal rulings are based on precedents, and rather than being "dated" these precedents are seldom overturned even by higher courts.
Banked blood, after it's cooled and stored, doesn't have the capability of fresh blood to transport oxygen. The body, especially in children, has a large reserve of red blood cells and what is initially needed is a volume expander.

It is ironic, to me at least, that you use the term "gold standard" to refer to blood transfusions:
"We see bloodless medicine and surgery as a "gold standard" in health care. We will be a leader in this field as well as a resource for those seeking treatment, knowledge and an understanding of the principles behind quality medical care without the use of blood or blood products. We will research and utilize every alternative available in our efforts to provide a continuum of care in the transfusion-free setting." http://www.swedish.org/body.cfm?id=133

"Throughout the country, bloodless medicine and surgery programs are discovering that this method is rapidly being regarded the new "gold standard" of patient care. This has been validated by findings that show that patients enrolled in such programs have experienced lower cost per treatment, decreased lengths of stay, and better outcomes." https://labs-sec.uhs-sa.com/clinical_int/dols/tmebt.htm

"Reducing or eliminating the need for blood transfusions is the new gold standard of medicine. While Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood for religious reasons, more patients and their doctors now choose to go bloodless by using precise surgical techniques and safe preventive measures." Medicine in a Different Vein: Reducing and Eliminating the Need for Transfusions, University Hospital, Newark, NJ

"Bloodless medicine and surgery may become the gold standard of care not only for safety reasons, but also out of necessity." Bloodless medicine and surgery in the OR and beyond.(operating room) - HighBeam Encyclopedia

"Bloodless surgery has been called the gold standard of health care, said Daniel Friedman, OrNda's director of bloodless medicine programs." Medical centers increase use of 'bloodless' surgical procedures Los Angeles Business Journal - Find Articles

"People are referring to this approach to patient care as the gold standard," she maintains. "That is exactly what we're looking at. It's through education that you begin to view it that way, because you don't learn it in medical school." Jehovah's Witnesses leading education drive as hospitals adjust to No Blood requests

"Bloodless surgery has been cited as becoming the gold standard of patient care.(4) The techniques are advocated and used by bloodless surgery centers across the United States." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_1998_Nov/ai_53268419/pg_2

Julie, did you read the article I cited earlier? Please do.
Bambootiger

We all benefit that religion makes science progress. If it wasn't for religion would we be talking of blood substitutes and bloodless surgery today. Blood business is lucrative so is it fair to think that if it wasn't for the numerous viruses and complications related to blood transfusions and the Kreaver commission, blood scandals, etc most well motivated and sincere physicians would to this day still consider blood as the ONLY alternative.
In Quebec Red Cross is out it is now HEMA Quebec. Same thing different name. Is blood safer than before ????

Just a note for those who want some legality background info. The way the law works in Canada, you need consent to administer medical treatment.

With adults it's easy, you ask them. However with unconcious adults, consent is implied, and judges usually rule "had they been given the option while awake, it's assumed they'd want to live".

With children, consent lies with the parents, unless the condition is life-threatening, and then consent is implied, and the law allows medical personnel to go ahead without a court order, even against the parent's wishes. It's the first thing you learn in a First Aid course in Canada.

The only thing they needed the court order for was to be able to remove the children from the parent's custody in order to administer the treatment. The courts didn't touch on whether the treatment was "right" or not.

So JulieM, I doubt the parents have an argument with regards to common law, because established precedent is that when a child is in a life-threatening situation, the parents' wishes have no standing.

JulieM

This sort of thing happens all the time (forced medical treatment that the parents refuse) and it doesn't garner much attention. I suspect the only reason this has gotten such media attention is:

a) the parents are JW
b) it was Canada's first sextuplets
c) two infants died before the courts took temp custody

===

My wife brought up an interesting point. In the womb, the blood of the mother & children co-mingles due to the fact that the capilaries for the womb, and the capilaries for the placenta, are so fine that blood cells can pass in & out at will. So the child essentially spends 9 months getting a slow transfusion from the mother and vice versa (this is why R-factor problems occur, since the mother's immune system reacts to the presence of the child's blood cells).

So would a transfusion from the mother be out of the question?