I would like to analyze a problem from an objectivist point of view: my grandmother has anemia, she needs a blood transfusion to avoid a deterioration of her illness but she refuses this kind of solution because she is a Jehova's witness. Apparently her belief forces her to suffer unneccesary because there are some passages on the Bible that forbid the acceptance of a transfusion because it is contrary to the desires of her god.
I am sure that her refusal is not rational but based on irrational ideas. Despite of my efforts I cannot convince her that it is a injurious decision (even after showing her how incoherent Jevoha's witnessess are, not just theologically). Since I do not want to see my grandmother suffering, I wish to do something to help her. Her doctors said that blood is the only possible solution, but they cannot force her to use it if she is not insane, she has right to decide. My point is that she cannot choose correctly due to an irrational alienation she has suffered, so I want that the transfusion be performed even perforce (applying anaesthesia e.g).
My ethical doubt comes at this point; Do I have the right to do it?, Can I save my grandmother's life even if I break her creed?. I know that her beliefs are irrational and I know that they can kill her, but I do not know if ethically I have the right to go against her beliefs.
From an objectivist point of view, what would be the correct choice?.