This is tragic. Reading that article it is unclear whether the children actually received a transfusion, is this the case?

Three of the children were seized and two of them received transfusions before being returned to the family. The father is now suing the government for infringing on his religious freedoms, and to block any further seizures.

Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Details as to why they received transfusions are not available (patient privacy and all that), so it's not clear if they had surgury and needed blood, or if their condition required a blood transfusion. Either way, most of the treatments listed on NoBlood.org wouldn't help, since they are mostly "remove blood & store for later re-insertion", which wouldn't really help a newborn...

According to an affidavit the father submitted, one child had a Hemoglobin count of 88g/L one day, and 80g/L the next (normal human is 120-180g/L). So they had 5 possible treatments:

-increase iron intake (unlikely to help, as he Hb level was falling too fast, treatment takes weeks)
-correct blood loss (n/a, they weren't bleeding out)
-medication such as Erythropoietin to stimulate blood production (unlikely to help, see iron intake)
-blood transfusion
-bone marrow transplant (would require anti-rejection drugs, and would involve blood transfer anyway)

Unbelievable how the state infringes on parental rights!!!
Hope the parents go ahead with a lawsuit and wish them well. They must be devastated with two children that didn't make it and two more that face risks of blood transfusions.

A slight clarification: it's my understanding with optimal dosing of EPO and IV iron, hemoglobin will often start to increase within one week. That's for an adult, don't know about premature infants. During that interim period hyperbaric oxygen is a possible solution. Don't know why that wasn't considered.

Thanks for the clarification.

Considering how fast it was falling, and how fragile these babies were (they were several months premature, less than 2 lbs each), I don't think EPO and IV iron would have stabalized them fast enough. They were already critically anemic and falling fast.

If they had caught it earlier, I'm sure it would have been a viable option. (There's no info about what happened in the last 3 months, just that 3 babies were seized following the death of 2 others...)

As for the hyperbaric oxygen, it would depend on the availability of a hyperbaric chamber. Plus there are risks, such as how to deal with an emergency should the child worsen (you can't just remove them and move them to an OR, you'd have to wait for the pressure to return to normal).

I'm sure that the doctors considered all these alternatives, because going to the courts is a) going to cause a lot of fuss, and b) is time consuming, which could be better spent treating the children.

Did the doctors consider all the alternatives? Why didn't they monitor the mother's pregnancy better in the first place. Could they have prevented premature births? Is it a laxist attitude to expect 'sextuplets' to survive without monitoring closely the pregnancy?
It is obvious that the parents have gone through a devastating situation without having to deal with the state unlawfully intervening in a doctor-patient situation or a parental issue. Hope parents go ahead with a lawsuit and win.
Does a transfusion guarantee that the children will survive? Why in 2007 are hyperbaric chambers not available.

They did, and knew the sextuplets condition was bad. In fact, at one point they recommended considering aborting 2/6 to help the other 4 have a better chance of survival. What's not clear is what treatments were tried during the last 3 months leading up to the 2 deaths. No details are given.

In the case of sextuplets? Unlikely. Most "multiple births" have complications that require premature birthing. Oxygen starvation in the womb due to 6 bodies fighting for the same blood supply for example. Lack of space (try fitting 6x 6lb babies into the space meant for a 14lb'er max...), etc. Risk of one getting tangled up and strangled by the 6 umbilical cords floating around (although this might not be a factor here due to the fact that they weren't all identical...)

Nothing is ever guaranteed. Same goes for hyperbaric treatment... Every treatment has it's risks.

They may very well have been available, but see my post above for why they are not practical in such a case where close monitoring is required, and conditions can change rapidly...

It can be supposed that the parents for moral beliefs or for the love of their children did not take physician's suggestion to abort two for the others to survive. Does this suppose they care for the well being of their little ones and carefully analysed the options for their treatment. The provincial governement under the false pretence of protecting the remaining children (Protecting them from whom...the parents?) decided to seize them and enforce a treatment. Does the PM of BC think he is a physician? Does he pretend to know better. Was a blood transfusion the only solution or Worst was it evident that with or without a transfusion the babies were simply not going to make it. The risks associated with a blood transfusion are also to be considered. Should a child survive what would be the futur consequences of the 'imposed' treatment?
Under the knowledge that a state or province can without a Supreme court ruling seize your children and enforce their personal views of what is right or wrong WHO would want to have children in that context. Democracy and religious rights have to be respected under the Charter of rights. If this is true of the B.C. government which other province or state can impose their personal views on acceptable treatment? Quite a scary scenario.

Or just that their religion bans both abortions and blood transfusions, hence why they refused both. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how they "weighed" their options.

I'm curious what your reaction would have been if their religion dictated that only the first born was important, and the rest could be starved (possibly to death). At that point you'd be screaming for the intervention of the state, yes? At what point do the rights of the parent's religion end, and what point do the rights of the children to live begin?

Everything I've heard so far is just speculation. Every criticism of the physicians (btw, who made the decision, the Premier just gets advised) assumes that there were 1,000 other treatments to help these children. Well what if transfusion WAS the only remaining viable option to save their lives? Would you agree with violating the parents' rights THEN? Or is it just an argument for arguments sake?