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.

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.

The article doesn't mention the parents' opinions, but I think the angle here is that the state is considering the interests of the child and assuming some of the responsibility when the parent "fails" to meet the court's standard of ensuring they survive the operation.

So, basically, you can refuse treatment for yourself from 18 onwards, but under 18 someone else has a duty of care. Typically your parents, but if your parents don't meet this duty of care the courts might intervene, on behalf of the child's interests.

Then with teenagers it's a whole massive grey area, they're still technically children but they are given limited agency - their opinion is considered, and here the hospital determined she had "capacity" to make the decision. Hence going to court to try and sort the whole mess out beforehand.

So the court here ruled that a 14 year old girl can't refuse life saving treatment.

They don't take issue with medicine or surgery, just blood that originates from another. This stance is based on their interpretation of scripture. They've also really began to pick and choose, as science has advanced. Typical Christian nonsense.

She's a child grown and conditioned entirely in the restrictive cult, knowing only what the Elders and her conditioned family taught her - the beliefs are hardly her own, let alone her medical choices. Poor kid is just one of thousands of victims of the Witnesses' doctrines.

A man sits on the roof during a rising flood.

A rowboat comes by, and yells, "get in the boat!"

"No, God will save me."

Then the coast guard comes by, "get in the boat!"

"No, God will save me."

Then a helicopter comes by, "climb in the helicopter!"

"No, God will save me."

Then a pack of wild hyenas swim by, and tear the man from limb to limb, laughing while he dies in agonizing horror.

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.