117
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
117 points (98.3% liked)
United Kingdom
5669 readers
399 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
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.