> Her deeply religious family have spent their entire life savings on her care and has complained that a “transparency order” requested by the hospital barred their ability to give details on the case to help raise public funds.

This is the most vile part of the British legal system - how it casually gags those involved from talking about it.

Edit: Otherwise, I would highlight master_crab's comment [1] - it's not 100% clear what "denied" means from this article. The BBC has more information [2] - it seems there may be a treatment available some time in the future in Canada, and the patient wants to stay on life-sustaining care in the hopes she survives long enough to get it, and the NHS/hospital is denying coverage for said care. "Triage" is disturbingly absent from both articles - it seems the hospital is making the perverse argument that this is in her best interest, and not a simple lack of resources.

While we don't have all the details, it is the hospital-requested "transparency order" that is to blame for this (the BBC article omits it, but Fox reported it [3]), we should apply the opposite of the benefit of the doubt - assume the information we've been legally barred from having is maximally incriminating.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37385072

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66673511

[3] https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-court-rules-teen-rare-disor...