Bioethical questions within the law, especially those concerning life-saving treatment, often require quick decisions. But litigation is notoriously slow and cumbersome. Such disputes are often moot by the time they reach an appellate court—one that can issue a decision of precedential value—because a decision by the court can have no practical legal effect on the controversy. While courts normally dismiss moot cases, there are some important exceptions. Famously, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade proceeded to decide the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion, even though the plaintiff’s baby had already been born (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)). After all, “the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied” [125]. Roe is not unique in this respect. Traditionally, appellate courts have adjudicated moot bioethics cases in two main situations: (1) when the issues are of public importance and (2) when the issues are capable of repetition yet evading review. But, increasingly, appellate courts are abdicating their responsibility to decide moot cases satisfying these exceptions. In re Sheila W., 2013 WI 63; 348 Wis.2d 674, 835 N.W.2d 148, a July 2013 decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is of interest because it illustrates a growing trend of appellate courts declining to address difficult and controversial bioethics issues. Sheila W. (Sheila) was a 15-year-old resident of Dane County, Wisconsin. In February 2012 she was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, a life-threatening illness in which a person’s immune system attacks her bone marrow, preventing the body from producing new blood cells. Sheila’s physicians gave her antibody treatments. After three days, however, Sheila’s red blood cell, white blood cell, and platelet counts remained very low. Her physicians determined that she needed blood transfusions. Without them, Sheila was at risk of infection, spontaneous hemorrhage, and cardiac arrest. In short, Sheila’s physicians concluded that, without blood transfusions, she would die. But Sheila and her family are Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe that God prohibits blood transfusions. Accordingly, Sheila’s parents refused to consent to blood transfusions. Moreover, Sheila’s parents thought that Sheila was mature enough to make her own decision. They told Sheila that they would support her decision whether to accept or refuse transfusions. Like her parents, Sheila also refused to consent to the transfusions. She told her attending physician that she “would rather die... than survive [with] the stigma Bioethical Inquiry (2013) 10:441–444 DOI 10.1007/s11673-013-9486-z