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
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:
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.
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.
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.