The baby boy suffered life threatening conditions. Doctors at the hospital sought directions to allow the withdrawal of life support. His parents wanted him to be given the chance of experimental treatment in the US. In April a declaration had been made allowing the withdrawal of life support. The parents appeals had been rejected by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The parents asserted that new evidence was now available and asked the court to review its decision.
Held: The court had to treat the child’s welfare as the paramount consideartion. The decision could only be reversed for compelling new evidence. The proposed treatment remained completely untested for this condition, and ‘The consequences of the MRI scans were briefly referred to in court last Friday. The parents have had to face the reality, almost impossible to contemplate; that Charlie is beyond any help even from experimental treatment and that it is in his best interests for him to be allowed to die. Given the consensus that now exists between parents, the treating doctors and even Dr Hirano, it is my very sad duty to confirm the declarations that I made in April this year, and I now formally do so. I do not make a mandatory order.’
As to any suggestion that the boy was in effect a prisoner of the state: ‘This is the antithesis of the truth. In this country children have rights independent of their parents. Almost all of the time parents make decisions about what is in the best interests of their children and so it should be. Just occasionally, however, there will be circumstances such as here where a hospital and parents are unable to decide what is in the best interests of a child who is a patient at that hospital. It is precisely because the hospital does not have power in respect of that child that this hospital makes an application to the court, to an independent judge, for a determination of what is in that child’s best interests. In circumstances where there is a dispute between parents and the hospital, it was essential that Charlie was himself independently represented and a guardian was therefore appointed to represent Charlie so that there was someone who could independently report to the court as to what was in his best interests. Our judges are fiercely independent of the state and make decisions, having heard evidence and having considered the law.’
Francis J
[2017] EWHC 1909 (Fam)
Bailii, Judiciary
Children Act 1989 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates and Others FD 11-Apr-2017
Baby Gard suffered an overwhelming and life threating condition. The Hospital considered that his welfare wa sbest served by withdrawal of life support. His parents could not agree. The Hospital now sought a declaration from the court as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Health Professions
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.591137