An emergencv court order was issued to transfuse the mother against her will, in part because preserving the family and providing a child with a mother were considered a state superior interest. This case was eventually appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which unanimously found that the lower court erred. Divorce, skydiving, and auto racing could all be banned to parents if their rights were secondary to the family unit. Proving a state superior interest is becoming increasingly difficult. Physicians who care for Jehovah's Witnesses must be prepared to withhold blood as a therapy no matter how necessary this treatment becomes.
Children are a different story.
The court determined that the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose children to ill health or death. This was a class action suit that sought to enjoin all physicians and hospitals in the state of Washington from administering blood to plaintiffs in the future. Ten children were included in this suit. The court ruled that Prince v Commonwealth of Massachussetts was pertinent and upheld the state of Washington's child neglect reg ulations that allowed minors to be removed from their parent's care for necessary transfusions. The question of who is a child is not straighdorward.