116
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
116 points (98.3% liked)
United Kingdom
5669 readers
92 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.