I find it difficult to tell how I feel about this. On the one hand it seems in this case the health board is trying to ensure the child survives the operation while trying to honour their wish to avoid the transfusion unless it’s clearly necessary, which all sounds good. I also recognise that the reason the child is refusing it is due to religion which they probably had no choice but to be indoctrinated in from birth.
On the other hand, all parties recognise that the child is capable of making their own decision and understand the consequences, but yet still gets ignored. This seems like a slippery slope. Where is the line when the court can decide what happens to someone’s body against their will? I could understand it if they also claim the person is unable to make the choice for themselves (e.g. too young to understand the consequences, or under the influence of propaganda), but they are not claiming that.
The article explains that they were looking for an explanation under these specific circumstances, with a 14 year old themselves refusing, which implies the legal question has already been answered for other circumstances. I would imagine that at 18 anyone can refuse any treatment themselves, so at 18 her wishes would not be ignored.
Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. Just because a judge has carefully weighed that this is in the 14 year olds best interest now, does not at all mean more dire decisions against personal rights will be made in future.
I’ll worry if the courts ever start making decisions that go against the childs best interest.
The judge said they’re ordering this because there would not be time to solicit the court for an order if a transfusion does become necessary, and risk of death would be significant.
I’m fine with letting adult religious zealots bleed out if they’re too god-brained to accept help, but for a 14yo I think it’s pretty reasonable to save them from themselves so they can live to have a fully-developed brain.
Sure, but they have reported that the child is capable of making their own decisions and fully understand the consequences:
A report submitted to Lady Tait assessed the child as having “capacity” and having a full understanding of the implications of her decision.
So it seems they assessed it, found that the child can make the decision, then made the decision themselves instead.
The point I made is that for them to decide about this case the outcome of the assessment should have been something more like “established that the child is not developed/mature/whatever enough to make a decision that can potentially end their lives until they reach 18y of age” or “the child has been exposed to harmful religious propaganda for years…” instead. Basically, anything that’d clarify the reason and criteria that enables them to make this decision on the child’s behalf against their wishes (even if they are illogical).
Worrying when they start making the decisions you don’t agree with sounds like worrying once the milk is already spilled, especially when precedents are a thing. They are a lot easier to make than overturn.
I disagree with this being a “slippery slope fallacy”, I think there is already something wrong here even if the outcome is still agreeable, hence my conflict.
If a 14 year old could make good decisions, then that would be the legal adult age. Not 18, or even 21 years old in some places.
The judge would never make a legal argument that “religious propaganda had reduced a person’s legal capacity” as it would have wide-ranging implications and would be challenged (and overruled) in short order due to freedom of religion laws.
The hospitals legal team appealed for an order because the kid was effectively killing themselves and they have a duty to do no harm.
This prompted the health board to go to the Court of Session to seek an order which would allow its doctors to administer the blood transfusion up to two weeks following the child’s procedure.
Its legal team told Lady Tait that such an order was necessary because blood loss was an “inevitable consequence” of the operation.
The judge deemed that weighing the child’s personal beliefs and medical risk it was in their best interest to allow the order. That is their justification and it follows other case law examined, there is no legal need for them to deem the kid incapable of making the decision. It’s only made the news because religious people making dumb decisions about their health is a common public interest story.
Lady Tait also wrote about cases examined by English courts, before concluding that in the context of the case brought before the court, it would be in the best interests of the child that the order be granted.
Whilst I certainly agree with the court that the blood transfusion is in their best interest, I do worry that they might just decide to refuse the entire operation now, seems like they’re now playing chicken with the kid and hoping their sense of self preservation overrides their faith. Not sure I’d play that game, religion is a powerful drug
Nah, the whole point of going to court was to cover their ass legally either way, so that the operation could go ahead.
If they’d refused a transfusion and she’d died, they could get sued for not transfusing. If they’d overrode her wishes and transfused, they could get sued for that. By getting the court’s opinion beforehand they limit the chance of either happening.
Sure, that’s why this went to court, but the end result is the same, that the kid must now decide whether to have the operation knowing they might get a “sinful” blood transfusion, or refuse the entire operation.
Maybe the low risk of needing a transfusion will be enough to convince them it’s fine, or maybe the doctors don’t really care about the child’s welbeing and just wanted to be covered for all eventualities, but it’s still a bit of a perverse incentive
If anything the end result is different. The hospital had decided that the 14 year old had “capacity” to make the decision, meaning they would go along with her wishes. The hospital then sought the legal opinion of the court to cover their asses. The court made a different decision, ruling that the child does not have authority to make that choice and that the doctors must act to preserve the child’s life.
If I’m reading this right, the court only decided if the hospital can decide to give a blood transfusion after the operation. But the kid is still free to decide if they’ll accept the operation in the first place (or you know, just never show up), the kid knows about the court case, so they know if they accept the operation they are accepting a potential transfusion. So whilst everything you say is true, it doesn’t change the original issue I pointed out.
I thought you had a right to refuse medical treatment and die? Assuming the parents and child both agree although the parents are not mentioned at all.
If the parents and kid were disagreeing over it then it could be more of a problem.
The article doesn’t mention the parents’ opinions, but I think the angle here is that the state is considering the interests of the child and assuming some of the responsibility when the parent “fails” to meet the court’s standard of ensuring they survive the operation.
So, basically, you can refuse treatment for yourself from 18 onwards, but under 18 someone else has a duty of care. Typically your parents, but if your parents don’t meet this duty of care the courts might intervene, on behalf of the child’s interests.
Then with teenagers it’s a whole massive grey area, they’re still technically children but they are given limited agency - their opinion is considered, and here the hospital determined she had “capacity” to make the decision. Hence going to court to try and sort the whole mess out beforehand.
So the court here ruled that a 14 year old girl can’t refuse life saving treatment.
So they’re ok with getting operated on but cannot receive blood transfusions?
Reminds me of the woman who wanted an organ transplant but not the Covid vaccine (she was ok with every other required vaccine for the transplant because propaganda)
They don’t take issue with medicine or surgery, just blood that originates from another. This stance is based on their interpretation of scripture. They’ve also really began to pick and choose, as science has advanced. Typical Christian nonsense.
You know it’s possible to donate blood to yourself before a procedure. I’ve seen this Jehovah witness no transfusions thing several times but no one ever brings up using your own blood.
People do that. But that won’t help when you get in an accident and didn’t have time to donate beforehand
Sure but this seems to be a planned procedure rather than emergent. Also you get into areas of implied consent during emergencies.
Let them die if that’s what they want.
We do, but parental control over minors’ medical procedures becomes a huge issue here. If a 16 year old wants a lifesaving transfusion some places allow their parents to refuse it for them on religious grounds. The same applies to younger children as well.
Meh I was just being needlessly angry and annoyed. I don’t think we should let people die like that. Especially kids. Life saving treatment should never be up to the parents to decide, except in some very specific cases. Once they turn 18 they can make their own decisions, but fuck everything about putting your personal beliefs over your children’s lives and health.
In this instance it was the 16 year old child themselves refusing, and the hospital determining that she had capacity to do so. That’s why they went for a court order, so the decision and liability wouldn’t fall on them.
Only further goes to show that I should read the fucking article before raging, and then instead of raging stay rational. I give enough shit to others for doing precisely that. :/
Let’s not punish children for having morons as parents
from what I’ve heard from “genetically modified skeptic” (someone who grew up in an isolated fundamentalist christian community with homeschooling and now has changed and makes youtube videos about his experiences) the indoctrination is so serious and deep that many can’t escape it even as an adult, even with mountains of evidence, even when it would be to their benefit to drop old beliefs, and so i believe it’s not really their fault if they turn out to be hateful and dangerous people. even if they were at fault, i still don’t necessarily want people to die for misguided beliefs. I’m still debating whether that kind of compassion should also work for people like trump, vance, kirk, thiel, musk, etc. but imo it should work for regular religious fanatics.
She’s a child grown and conditioned entirely in the restrictive cult, knowing only what the Elders and her conditioned family taught her - the beliefs are hardly her own, let alone her medical choices. Poor kid is just one of thousands of victims of the Witnesses’ doctrines.
Nowhere in the Bible does a hero just let themselves go, and put their survival soley into the Creator’s hands: you gotta do your part too, Grasshopper!
A man sits on the roof during a rising flood.
A rowboat comes by, and yells, “get in the boat!”
“No, God will save me.”
Then the coast guard comes by, “get in the boat!”
“No, God will save me.”
Then a helicopter comes by, “climb in the helicopter!”
“No, God will save me.”
Then a pack of wild hyenas swim by, and tear the man from limb to limb, laughing while he dies in agonizing horror.
This isn’t the ending that I remember.
This one is much better.
What’s wrong? God saved him in the end.
Actually he was an unrepentant sinner who believed in the prosperity gospel so he went straight to non-existence because what he believes means nothing
I am confused about why this would need to go to a court for permission.
In the UK, if there’s a medical issue with any legal or ethical ambiguity, especially if a child is involved, doctors are required to defer the decision to a court. It means a lot of decisions end up being made by courts.
The court overruled the person’s right to refuse the transfusion. There’s a bit of legal burden on a party that wants to do things to your body that you told them not to do.
Ah there it is. The article wasn’t super clear on that, and I’m not paying close enough attention. “Can” vs. “will, if necessary”.
Yeah, to be clearer it covers them either way. Their initial position was to refuse a transfusion, but if she’d died there’d be every possibility that her parents would change their tune and sue the hospital for not providing the transfusion. And, of course, if they overrode her decision by themselves they’d also be open to a lawsuit. By going to court, then whichever way the court decides it becomes the court’s legal decision, and by following that the hospital avoids any potential legal problems and costs.
