There has been such State intervention before, writes Patsy McGarry, Religious AffairsCorrespondent
The High Court's move to extend an order overruling a mother's opposition to treatment for her five-month-old baby daughter is not the first time in recent years that the State has intervened where blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses were concerned.
In March 2000, gardaí were called to Waterford Regional Hospital when the Jehovah's Witness parents of a two-year- old boy refused to allow him a blood transfusion.
The boy was then taken into the care of the South Eastern Health Board.
He needed emergency surgery after a wall fell on him. When his parents refused to allow him to receive blood, gardaí were contacted.
The family was told by a Garda sergeant that the boy was being taken into the health board's care under section 12 of the Child Care Act. The parents accepted the matter was then out of their hands.
In September 2000, the High Court in Belfast ruled that a 15- year-old Jehovah's Witness girl should have a blood transfusion if necessary during a kidney transplant operation despite it being against her wishes and beliefs.
However, a 19-year-old Jehovah's Witness woman died in London in 1996 when her family refused to allow her a blood transfusion after she was in an accident.
The relevant Biblical text which is interpreted by Jehovah's Witnesses as preventing them from taking blood transfusions comes from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15.
It deals with a dispute between apostles Paul and Barnabas as to whether those who were not circumcised according to the law of Moses could be saved.
The apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the matter.
Addressing them, Peter said that God made no distinction between Gentiles and Jews, having purified all their hearts by faith.
He denounced the idea and said: "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they \ are."
James said it was his view that it should not be made difficult for the Gentiles who were turning to God.
"Instead, we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
It is from this that the Jehovah's Witnesses derive their belief that blood transfusions are wrong.
Legally, this can bring into conflict two fundamental principles: the right to life and the right to freedom of religious expression.