Baby X suffered a catastrophic accident. The doctors now sought to remove him from life support which would lead inevitably to his death. The parents resisted saying that there were signs of responsiveness, that there had been an improvement and that removing the care would run contrary to their religious views.
Held: A declaration was granted: ‘the desire to preserve life as the proper starting point to which I add that X is very probably unaware of any burden in his continued existence. Against that, secondly, I have set both his unconsciousness or unawareness of self, others or surroundings and the evidence that any discernible improvement is an unrealistic aspiration. Thirdly, I have acknowledged his ability to continue for some time yet on ventilation but have balanced that with the risk of infection or other deterioration and the desire to avoid death in isolation from human contact. Fourthly, having accepted that treatment serves no purpose in terms of improvement and has no chance of effecting it, I have taken into account its persistent, intense and invasive nature. Fifthly, I have noted the treating consultant’s view that X shows no desire to live or capacity to struggle to survive which are the conventional marks of a sick child; although I think that observation as such is correct, I would not want that to have significant let alone decisive weight in this balance. ‘ X’s welfare requires his removal from ventilation on to palliative care.
A life from which others may recoil can yet be precious.
Hedley J
[2012] EWHC 2188 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James and Others CA 1-Mar-2013
The patient had been found to lack capacity to litigate and make decisions as to his medical treatment. The Hospital appealed against rejection of its request for a declaration that it would be lawful to withhold treatment in the case of clinical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.463345
