These cases are complex. As you likely read, the 17 y.o. young man in one of my cited cases is stating that he will not allow a transfusion to be given to him.
And, in a comparatively short time, when he is of age, it will all be hypothetical.
--------------------
But leaving the JWs to one side,
what do you think of this case? A 6 y.o boy whose case has see-sawed through the legal system has now been (or, his parents have) permitted to refuse the recommended medical treatment and for 'nature' to take its course.
This boy has a brain tumour:
The ABC (an Australian Govt owned, but not controlled, media outlet) version quotes the judge:
In his judgement, Justice Richard O'Brien said his decision was determined by what was in the best interests of Oshin.
"This case is not about parental rights, nor is it about the perceived power of the medical profession. It is not about whether, in a general sense, quality of life is more important than duration of life, nor is it about the relative merits of traditional medicine and alternative or complementary therapies," he ruled.
"It is not about overarching considerations as to the right to life, or the right to a peaceful death, nor is it about a philosophical consideration of the best interests of children generally.
"This case is solely about Oshin Kiszko, and how to determine what is in his best interests as a unique individual child in the specific circumstances which he now faces."
Justice O'Brien said Oshin's relationship with this parents weighed heavily in his decision.
"I am deeply concerned that any perpetuation of the conflict over Oshin's treatment will continue to diminish the ability of his parents to focus their energies solely on the provision of that support and love directly to him when he needs it most," he said.
Justice Richard O'Brien emphasised that his decision did not set a precedent for other cases involving medical treatment of a child.
