Comparing Kierkegaard's Fear And Trembling

Theological Voluntarist would say the choice 28-year-old women made about refusing blood transfusion was right. The decision was right because theological voluntarist makes their moral decision based on the scared text and/or listen to any direct inspiration. Based on the scenario it was against 28- year-old women’s religion to get a blood transfusion even if the baby dies. For theological voluntarist whatever god’s will is that is what morally is right. For example, in the text Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, tell the story how one father’s sacrifice of his own son due to duty to god. “…he prayed God to forgive him his sin, that he had been willing to offer Isaac, that the father had forgotten his duty toward the son.” (Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling). God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah, and Abraham immediately accepts God’s command. He takes Isaac to the mountain and then kills him.
I believe just because of religious reason it is not right to make some die specially before they are even born. If the women had agreed to do blood transfusion the baby and herself would have been alive. As mother it is your duty to keep your child safe not to kill them. I wouldn’t agree to give up their child who was in my stomach for 6 and half months. This really pains me because the women had a whole life ahead of her. She was only 28. In “The Pregnant Jehovah's Witness” Tricia Tovarelli states that “The use of erythropoietin has not shown promise because the bone marrow of the sickle cell patient will simply produce more of the misshapen cells.” As we can see that the women had little chance of surviving without transfusion. I feel that the doctor should have tried to convince her to accept the blood transfusion somehow. I know doctor cannot force a treatment on to a patient. I do believe the decision that the 28-year-old women made was completely