No, for the most part this is incorrect. FutureCTDoc was most close to correct. In anything that allows a little time, you get a court order. Hospital ethics committees are usually involved ASAP (someone can get initiate contact with them immediately). There can be some time sensitive issues so emergent, life saving treatment cannot be refused by the guardian of a child. However, there may be more nuance to the case in the OP. While meningitis may have been the most likely diagnosis confronting the doc, six isn't out of range for a febrile seizure. In theory, the case may have been predicated on a final diagnosis of febrile seizure and failure to consider the DDx. However, that may be stretching based on a lack of intimate knowledge of the case. If it was felt that treatment was life saving in an emergent setting, then the doc was on solid ground and a suit wouldn't have much merit or get very far.
Agree with J-Rad.
If you have a few hours and the case involves a minor, you contact your hospital's on-call attorney (and ethics committee if required by the hospital) to get an emergency court order (from an on-call judge) to begin treatment (ie giving blood, antibiotics, procedures). Any restrictions will depend on individual states and their laws (such as age-cutoffs, emancipated minors, etc). With a court order, the family will have little legal standing to sue.
This topic is popular in ethics discussion because there are several fundamental principles at odds with one another. Where does Freedom of Religion begin and end, where do parental rights begin and end, at what point can children make decisions for their own body, and where do state rights begin and end. These ethical discussion usually brings out passionate debate.
From a legal standpoint, the position is clear (with numerous court cases at state levels and a few SCOTUS cases)
Prince v Massachusetts gets cited a lot as the reigning legal principle:
""Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children..."
Subsequent cases have been consistent with this viewpoint and usually leads to three main principle
- The child's interests and those of the state outweigh parental rights to refuse medical treatment
- Parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children
- Parents do not have an
absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on their religious beliefs
Source:
Children of Jehovah's Witnesses and adolescent Jehovah's Witnesses: what are their rights? Arch Dis Child 2005;90:715-719 
