In Chapter 2 of the text Pozgar cites the caseIn re Guardianship of L.S.,120 Nev. 157 (Nev. 2004, at p. 61), in which the court held the parents' refusal to consent to medical treatment for their minor child because of their religious beliefsput the child's life at substantial risk, noting the State has an interest in protecting "the ethical integrity of the medical profession," and "in allowing hospitals the full opportunity to care for patients under their control, especially when medical science is available to save that patient's life,"

Does this decision contradict the ethical principle of a patient's (or the patient's surrogate) right of autonomy and self-determination? Explain why or why not?See also, for example,Matter of O'Connor,72 N.Y.2d 517 (1988), in which a divided New York Court of Appeals held a hospital acted properly in refusing the requests of an incompetent patient's daughters to withhold life-saving medical treatment.