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.
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.
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.