A UK journalist published this statement from a QC, without any context or critique. Judges in England make many decisions about medical treatment (including withdrawal of life support, blood transfusions, abortion, sterilisation) for children and adults who lack mental capacity https://twitter.com/rubyjll/status/1338857111279681536

As many of these decisions have been about the beginning and end of life eg those of Tony Bland, the 96th Hillsborough victim; conjoined twins Mary and Jodie; the very young children Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, of course they engage public interest and conflicting ethical views

Those conflicting ethical views may, and have been openly articulated by lawyers professionally engaged in more than one of these cases, but cases about individuals are not decided by judges through the influence of activism, or arguments driven purely by one ethical standpoint

This is one of several judgments in the agonising progress of litigation about withdrawal of life support from a child, Alfie Evans, in 2018. Two paragraphs illustrate how the courts deal with the presentation of arguments influenced by lawyers’ activism https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html

Anyone who has read Ian McEwan’s novel, The Children Act, or seen the film of it, in which Emma Thompson plays a High Court judge making just such decisions, will have some idea of how some of these cases are decided https://link.medium.com/VOkB7GDxgcb