Not automatically.
The courts are fairly reluctant to interfere in family life. There is a history of courts overruling parental refusals, but it is not a given that that's what'll happen.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 24 Mar 2009, 13:58, 3 replies)

Hmm
There's also a (hidden) history of medics giving transfusions when no one's looking anyway. Only problem with that is that the Jehovah's Witnesses then go on to use their case as proof that transfusions aren't necessary, and that miracles happen if you pray hard enough...


*sigh*
(Beer Elf Thought this was like a campfire, anyhow, on, Tue 24 Mar 2009, 14:03, closed)

Oh agreed
It's by no means automatic, however if the child's life is in the balance and the hospital administrators have enough time then it happens more often than not.
(powervator and NONE SHALL PASS, Tue 24 Mar 2009, 15:06, closed)

What I learned on a uni medical ethics course
was that as most JW parents value their kids above their religion, hospitals have a procedure to cover transfusions.

The parents make a token protest against the transfusion but it's done anyway, as the hospital can tell them that the ward of court application is already underway.

The hospital's done its job, the child is saved, the JW parents are off the hook and everyone's happy.
(Juan Quar is clinging to her front teeth on, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 8:10, closed)