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.
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.