It is my experience that in the paediatrics area, the threat of legal action is not uncommon. It is not uncommon to hear obstetricians and paediatricians describe themselves as advocates for the child, a presumptuous perspective that instantly puts them in opposition to the child's natural and legal guardians and advocates. Medical treatment can usually only offer a statistical chance of benefit or of life - a prediction which is often based on incomplete or less than perfect evidence. It seems to me the Commissioner for Children has also fallen into an error by over-estimating the efficacy and predictability of medical treatment. He describes parental rejection of treatment as denying a child a right of life.
Medical science is virtually never that clear cut.
Parents who refuse medical treatment for their children can rarely be categorised as having chosen death over life. In medical treatment there is rarely a clear choice between all benefit and no risk, and benefit and all risk. Making decisions about medical treatments is a balance, involving weighing up a range of factors. The medical profession represent only one set of factors. The crux of this debate is the increasing gulf between medical values and lay values.