Should freedom of religion mean that parents can refuse medical treatment for their children?

This is certainly not the only place this question has been posed, and the debate is bound to rage ... waxing and waning as circumstances arise ... well into this new century and longer.

The focus at the moment is on a family in Canada, and the issue is fragile babies and blood transfusions.

Canada's first set of sextuplets ever born would be attention-grabbing enough. Born at only 25 weeks gestation, these babies -- four boys and two girls --- weighed less than 800 grams (1.76 pounds) each. Adding their frail state and the fact that their parents are Jehovah's Witnesses makes the story international front page fodder.

To date, two of the babies have died. Three of the surviving four were seized by the government and given blood transfusions against the strong objections of the parents.

With the treatment concluded for now, the children have been returned to parental custody.

The parents are charging the the province's intervention violates their constitutional rights, and they're asking the court to block any future transfusions.

The children's father complained in a court document that because the parents wanted to use medical alternatives to blood transfusions "we have been stripped of our parental rights and have been labeled unfit."

The family's lawyer, who has represented Jehovah's Witnesses in other medical cases, alleges the province of British Columbia violated a 1995 Canadian Supreme Court decision that requires parents be given a fair hearing before intervention.

A court hearing on the family's complaint is scheduled for February 22.

Here are a few more links to the story:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/31/bc-sextuplets.html

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-02-01T233905Z_01_N31359194_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-SEXTUPLETS-COL.XML

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=dc9b1094-8cad-41e1-9e80-948ce5a55544

So, where do the rights of the parents take precedent? How much authority does the State have? Where does religious freedom begin and end? Who should have the final say on children? Does this debate tie into others, and if so is there anything about this situation that sets it apart from others of State vs. parents?

Any thoughts? ...