The Court of Session’s Outer House has ruled in favor of granting urgent medical treatment to three children despite objections from their parents on religious and other grounds. In a judgment issued August 20, 2026, Lord Braid confirmed the court’s authority under its parens patriae jurisdiction to authorize life-saving medical interventions for minors unable to consent themselves, overriding parental refusal when necessary to protect the child’s welfare.

The cases involved children from Scotland’s Greater Glasgow and Borders Health Boards. Child A, a 13-year-old boy with aggressive brain cancer whose family are Jehovah’s Witnesses, required chemotherapy and radiotherapy to improve his chances of survival. His parents consented to some treatments but refused consent for blood transfusions, creating a potential barrier to effective care. Child B, a three-year-old also from a Jehovah’s Witness family, needed surgery to relieve a kidney blockage complicated by sickle cell disease. His parents objected to blood products due to their religious beliefs. The court granted permission in both cases, recognizing the urgent need for treatment and noting that the parents appeared to accept judicial intervention to avoid fatal outcomes.

The third case involved Child C, a 10-year-old girl who sustained a dog bite resulting in an open wound. Unlike the other cases, her parents actively opposed court authorization, disputing the necessity of preventive tetanus injections recommended by medical staff. The family, who embrace natural remedies and a holistic lifestyle, questioned the scientific basis for vaccination in this instance, arguing the risk of tetanus was low given the circumstances, and expressed concerns about vaccine safety. They also requested additional time to consider alternatives, which the court could not allow due to the treatment’s time sensitivity.

Lord Braid emphasized that the court’s power to intervene is an exception to parental autonomy reserved for urgent situations where the child lacks capacity to consent and faces significant health risks. He noted that while parental views and religious beliefs are important considerations, they do not outweigh the child’s welfare, especially where the risk to life or serious harm is material. The judgment underscored a presumption in favor of preserving life as a primary best interest.

In assessing Child C’s case, the court acknowledged the scientific evidence that tetanus spores could be present even from a dog bite and that failure to vaccinate posed a real risk of serious, potentially fatal infection. Given the severity of potential outcomes and the narrow window for effective prevention, the court authorized the administration of tetanus treatment despite parental opposition, ordering the parents to bring the child to hospital promptly.

Each child was represented by a court-appointed curator ad litem who supported the medical interventions as necessary for the children’s best interests. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding vulnerable children when parental decisions may place them at substantial health risk. NHS Scotland’s Central Legal Office acted on behalf of the health boards in these proceedings.