Fixed it for you.
Too late for that. Having agreed to use a machine instead of blood, the hospital should have fixed the machine before the patient died. In all fairness though, it should also be understood that the hospital was trying to help the patient and in this particilar case, given the blood, the patient would probably not have died from blood loss asuuming that was the actual cause of death. While it is true that the machine failed, the hospital had other lifesaving techniques at its disposal available at the time the machine broke that the patient rejected on religious grounds prior to surgery. But again, if a written agreement existed, it must be considered. And while it may be true that had the machine been fixed, the patient would have lived, there are other factors to consider.