The judge would never make a legal argument that "religious propaganda had reduced a person's legal capacity" as it would have wide-ranging implications and would be challenged (and overruled) in short order due to freedom of religion laws.

The hospitals legal team appealed for an order because the kid was effectively killing themselves and they have a duty to do no harm.

This prompted the health board to go to the Court of Session to seek an order which would allow its doctors to administer the blood transfusion up to two weeks following the child's procedure.

Its legal team told Lady Tait that such an order was necessary because blood loss was an "inevitable consequence" of the operation.

The judge deemed that weighing the child's personal beliefs and medical risk it was in their best interest to allow the order. That is their justification and it follows other case law examined, there is no legal need for them to deem the kid incapable of making the decision. It's only made the news because religious people making dumb decisions about their health is a common public interest story.

Lady Tait also wrote about cases examined by English courts, before concluding that in the context of the case brought before the court, it would be in the best interests of the child that the order be granted.