A quote about the case from the Humanist Association
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0922/1158590881290.html
The Humanist Association of Ireland described the court decision as "absolutely outrageous". Its vice-chairman Dick Spicer said the decision set a dreadful precedent. "It overrides individual religious rights. It overrides the right to refuse treatment and the ramifications of this could be enormous in the future", he said.
I understand his concerns but what he doesn't realise is that the Watchtower have overriden the individual rights of its members by the banning of blood transfusions. I also think he would find outrageous that should the woman have chosen to have had a transfusion she would have been shunned by all her religious colleagues.
A case in point is that of Skyking:
The state of Washington took legal action against myself and my wife to give a transfusion to my daughter. THANK GOD THEY DID THIS.
I hope things worked out well with your daughter.
But it shows that actually it is not the individuals beliefs that cause the refusal of blood but that of the Governing Body. To illustrate, I wonder how many JWs would now happily accept haemoglobin wheras a few years ago it was banned?