The British press has been following an emotional story about religious belief and patient autonomy. In October Emma Gough gave birth to twins. Complications from the delivery led to bleeding and her doctors said she’d need a blood transfusion to survive. But Gough and her husband are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses and she refused the transfusion. She died hours later.

The case has led to a range of reactions in the UK — from accusations that doctors made mistakes resulting in the complications to disbelief that a mother would choose to forgo treatment in this way. Others are trying to get a better understanding of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their beliefs.

Did Gough’s doctors do the right thing by not providing the transfusion? Here’s what the head of ethics at the British Medical Association told the BBC about situations involving an adult who refuses treatment on religious grounds:

“It’s something we just have to live with – the alternative would be to change the law, change the human rights law. It’s just too important that we all as individuals are able to make our own decisions.”

A hospital in Dublin, Ireland faced a similar situation last year — and it took the case to court, ultimately being granted the authority to provide treatment. The justice in that case ruled that the interests of the newborn were “paramount” and they superseded that of the mother. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Ireland called that decision “akin to rape.”

-Greg Dahlmann