THE LAWYER representing the parents, Richard Daniels, said they could not, because of their religious beliefs consent to the order being made.
However, the parents who cannot be named said they recognised the court has power and authority to make such an order and it was "inevitable" the order would be made so as to protect their babies. He said the parents believed the order should address both the concerns of the medical treatment team and their own religious beliefs.
Brian Murray SC for the HSE said there was a close working relationship between the parents and the medical team treating the mother and the team were well aware of the parents' wishes.
Mr Daniels read a letter from the mother of the babies who said she would like to have been in court but could not be as she was undergoing daily monitoring and due to her medical condition.
She said: "I am of sound mind, born and raised in Ireland and I understand the laws of this land as does my husband. We love our children with all our hearts". She said they were already the parents of a healthy four-year-old child and did not want their children to die or cause them harm.
They had been treated at all times in hospital and by the medical team in a respectful, honest and courteous manner, she added and they realised the seriousness of the situation of the babies. Because of their "firm scriptural beliefs", which she had held for 20 years and her husband for 15 years, they could not consent to blood transfusions.
However, they understood that the doctors feared they had no choice. "All we ask is that bloodless alternatives be tried first", and they would not interfere with the court's decision. She also asked for their anonymity to be maintained for the sake of their children.
Outlining the basis for the application, Mr Murray said the babies were severely anaemic and the normal approach to that was to give a transfusion in the womb. However, that was not being proposed here and it was hoped instead to have an early delivery after which it appeared it would be necessary to administer transfusions to the babies.
Mr Murray then read affidavits from consultants treating the mother. One consultant said that, as a result of the woman's refusal to accept Anti-D, she developed antibodies against Rhesus D positive cells. The babies were Rhesus positive and at risk from the antibodies. She refused to consent to the babies receiving blood transfusions in the womb or after delivery.