People have a right to believe what they want to believe. "Old men's ideas that have evolved over time to keep pace with governments" pretty much sums up the entirety of all religion everywhere, doesn't it? The girl was 17 years-old, well old enough to think for herself and make an informed decision. How old were you when you realized the JWs didn't have "the one true religion?" If the WTS's take on the use of blood is legalistic and impractical, so is the idea that maturity is magically bestowed upon a person at his or her 18th birthday. Consider this:
He says his victory means he can bring forth more evidence about the crucial treatment decisions made in Bethany's case, her final days, and expose the fact that his daughter did not really accept she must not have transfusions.
Basically, that's like saying she did have the right to decide on the transfusions, but only if she agreed to take them. Either her opinion has weight in the matter or it does not. Either she is a minor with no legal say in the matter or a mature human being with a right to her own body and beliefs. Is a 17 year-old's opinion only pertinent because the parents disagreed? If the parents were both against the transfusion, and the daughter wanted one, would the situation be different? If the parents both wanted her to have it done, and the child was against it, what then?
I only vaguely remember hearing about the case as it was happening, so all I can really comment on is what is presented in this article. But a young girl lying on a bed having tubes filled with bodily fluids inserted inside of her body against her will evokes strong rape imagery. Of course the father wanted what was best for his daughter, but look what he put her through! And for what? She still died! If she had lived, if she was a few years younger, everything would be different.