Yes, a long read, but it looks like you guys dug out the gems already.
28] Judge Jordan also considered B.H.'s upbringing: B.H. has been raised within the Jehovah's Witness faith which rejects the use of blood transfusions. Judge Jordan went on to say, at para. 24, "She has participated actively in her religious community to such an extent that I find that she has lived a sheltered life. ... She has never been exposed to any other religious teachings. ... [R]eligious teachings provided to B.H. concerning blood transfusions have been dogmatic. Adherents to the faith do not question dogma or examine other points of view." Her ultimate conclusion, at para. 25, was:
I find that B.H. has not had the life or developmental experience which would allow her to question her faith and/or its teachings and that such experience is an essential step in arriving at a personal level of development such that she can be considered to be a mature minor who has the capacity to refuse medical treatment which is necessary to save her life. Intelligence, thoughtfulness, exemplary behaviour and notable academic achievement are not sufficient when the magnitude of the decision faced by a 16 year-old involves a certain risk of death.
...Without wishing to introduce into the case the notions of undue influence, I find that the influence of the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses is strong and powerful. The very fact that this family can contemplate the death of one of it members is the most eloquent testimony of the power of that faith. He is a boy who seeks and needs the love and respect of his parents whom he would wish to honour as the Bible exhorts him to honour them. I am far from satisfied that at the age of 15 his will is fully free. He may assert it, but his volition has been conditioned by the very powerful expressions of faith to which all members of the creed adhere. ... I respect this boy's profession of faith, but I cannot discount at least the possibility that he may in later years suffer some diminution in his convictions. There is no settled certainty about matters of this kind.
67] First, I had thought that we as a society had come to understand that what occurred under Nazi rule was a singular event because it was so horrible. It is not something that should be lightly used as a comparator. Second, if A.H. (the mother) truly believes what she says, then it is a very strong indication that she has no perspective on her child's current medical situation. She cannot make decisions for her or advise her.
[68] That conclusion is fortified by A.H.'s actions at the hospital. On March 4, Dr. Saunders writes at 1:15 p.m. (hospital records, p. 340), "B. struggled with her IV line during transfuse. 3 people required to hold her to keep her safe. I allowed Mom to stay if she promised not to touch her lines & use only verbal protest. She was unable to comply. I suggest that Mother not be by her side for next transfusion." It is troubling to hear that B.H.'s mother would risk harm to her child by tampering with medical equipment during a procedure. I am not talking about the long-term issues of whether or not to receive blood transfusions. I am talking about the immediate physical harm to B.H. if the lines were removed improperly.
Initially the Child co-operated with medical staff but voiced her objections to the transfusions in a way that did not place herself or others at harm. She has informed me that she had been instructed to "fight" by both the Mother and Mr. Gnam, counsel for the Child and she was confused how passive resistance would not be accepted as "fighting". Once the Mother began to attend during the blood transfusions, there was an immediate and noticeable deterioration of the Child's behavior; ...