Judge backs doctors over teen’s refusal of blood transfusion on religious grounds

The Court of Session was told that the teenager had made clear that she did not consent to a transfusion, even in an emergency, because of her beliefs. Lawyers acting for a Scottish health board nevertheless sought an order permitting the procedure should her life be placed at risk.

Lady Tait granted the order, concluding she was satisfied it was in the child’s best interests while “giving appropriate weight to her views”.

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject blood transfusions on religious grounds, with their official teachings stating that adherents should abstain from blood under both the Old and New Testaments.

A report before the court assessed the girl as having “capacity” and a full understanding of the potential consequences of refusing a transfusion. That assessment prompted the health board to seek judicial authorisation to allow doctors to administer blood for up to two weeks following the operation.

Counsel for the board told the court that blood loss was an “inevitable consequence” of the procedure and that an advance order was required to protect the child’s life.

Neither the health board nor the child has been identified.

In a written judgment published yesterday, Lady Tait said that while the likelihood of a transfusion being required was small, the consequences of withholding it could be severe, including a risk of death. She added that there would likely be insufficient time to obtain court approval once any complications arose.

The judge made clear that any transfusion would be administered only if it was considered necessary to prevent significant harm, including death.

Lady Tait said she had issued a written opinion because the Scottish courts had not previously considered the issue in relation to under-16s who possess “capacity”. She examined the court’s powers to authorise treatment where a child cannot consent, as well as relevant decisions from English courts.