I am still thinking about this....more thoughts
You will notice what it is that the parents are pleading for in this case. They already know that they cannot oppose a blood transfusion for their child:
"They are understandably unable to consent to what is being proposed but they do not oppose it and leave the decision to the Court."
So what is all the fuss about taking this to court? a case that they don't "oppose"?
Here we go:
"They emphasise that they would want forms of treatment other than the administration of blood products to be considered..."
And there we have it - the reason why the WTS continues to oppose the law on the matter of child sacrifice - to promote their alternative brand of medicine.
One more thought.
This concerns the Society's position in Australia that a mandatory reporting law for child abuse would fix the problem down there. Sez who? Why would the courts believe that? The WTS' record of respecting the law on minor children is completely the opposite. Laws that have been in place to protect children from having their parents use them for a sacrifice to the Blood God have been challenged over and over again in the courts. Why would we expect anything different with the laws put in place to protect victims of sex abuse when laws protecting the minor victims of their blood doctrine are still being challenged?