The High Court has authorised doctors to give a pregnant 16-year-old a blood transfusion if it becomes necessary to save her life or prevent serious irreversible injury, despite her stated refusal on religious grounds.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin made the ruling on 13 February 2026 after hearing that the teenager, identified only as E, was 37 weeks pregnant and faced an unpredictable risk of major obstetric haemorrhage before, during or after delivery.
E had repeatedly told her treating consultant that she would refuse red blood cells even if doing so could result in her death. Her parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, supported her wishes and said they could not consent to the treatment.
Medical evidence before the court was that severe bleeding could develop within minutes and that alternatives, including cell salvage, might not be available or sufficient. A transfusion could therefore become necessary as a last resort to prevent organ failure or death.
The court gave significant weight to E's views as a maturing adolescent. Her guardian ad litem reported that E regarded refusal of blood as a core religious principle, although she was not strongly practising her faith at present. E also said it would be easier if someone else made the decision for her.
The judge noted medical evidence raising doubts about whether E could fully weigh the relevant information when making the refusal. He found clear and convincing evidence that refusing potentially life-saving treatment would prejudice her safety and welfare to the level required for court intervention.
The order gives substitute consent for clinically necessary treatment, including blood transfusion and clotting agents, but only where her treating consultant or deputy considers it appropriate and in her best interests.
The court did not admit E into wardship. The wardship summons was adjourned, with the judge stressing that the intervention was limited to overriding this single treatment decision.