What outcome resulted from the refusal of parents to allow a blood transfusion for their sick child?

The correct outcome is that the child's right to live was deemed paramount. In cases involving medical treatment for minors, courts have often prioritized the best interests of the child, particularly when life-threatening situations are involved. This principle protects vulnerable individuals who may not be able to make decisions for themselves.

In situations where parents refuse necessary medical treatment for their children based on personal or religious beliefs, the courts have intervened to ensure that the child receives the care they need to survive. The rationale behind this is the recognition that a child’s right to life and health takes precedence over parental rights in cases where those rights may lead to harm or endangerment of the child’s health.

This approach seeks to balance parental rights with the state's interest in protecting children. While parents generally have a substantial role in medical and religious decisions concerning their children, the state's interest in preserving life becomes crucial when it comes to decisions that could result in severe health consequences or death.

Other options, while addressing important themes such as religious liberty or parental rights, do not align with how the law typically prioritizes the immediate well-being of minors in peril. The emphasis on the child's survival reflects a fundamental principle in child welfare law, making the chosen answer appropriate in this context.