When a Jehovah’s Witness Child Dies After a Blood Transfusion Is Refused, Is That Death Morally Comparable to a Sacrifice to Molech?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the blood of an animal killed for food was poured onto the ground because it symbolized the life that had been taken.
(Leviticus 17:13–14; Deuteronomy 12:23–24)
A modern blood transfusion is fundamentally different.
The donor has not died or surrendered their life. They have voluntarily given a limited amount of blood so that another human being may live. No life has been taken, and the blood is neither eaten nor used in worship.
Consider the woman suffering from chronic bleeding who touched Jesus’ garment. Under the Mosaic Law, her condition made her ritually unclean. Yet Jesus did not rebuke her for seeking healing. Instead, he reassured her:
“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

— Mark 5:34
Jesus also asked a decisive question:
“Is it lawful […] to save life, or to kill?”

— Mark 3:4
Blood represents life, but it is not life itself.
A symbol intended to express respect for life should never become more sacred than the actual life of a child.
Jehovah’s Witness parents do not worship Molech, nor do they want their children to die. Therefore, these deaths are not sacrifices to Molech in the literal or historical sense.
But the moral question remains:
If a child dies because a potentially lifesaving transfusion was refused in obedience to a religious rule, has the symbol of life been valued above life itself?
Would a God who condemned the sacrifice of children truly require parents to refuse the treatment that could save their own child?