British Courts Allow Clinicians to Stop Life Support over Parents' Objections

Just a few days ago, I blogged about the London High Court decision in Baby X, permitting clinicians to remove a baby's life support over the parents' objections.  This morning, the British newspaper (Daily Mail; Telegraph) are reporting another London court decision permitting providers to stop treatment (ECMO) for an eight-year-old boy over his parents' objections.





THE COURT DECISION

On Friday, Mr Justice Ryder (Family Division) said there was no hope of the eight-year-old recovering from lung failure after a “tragic decline in health” and it would be wrong to keep him alive and possibly in pain on a machine. Weighing up the benefits and burdens of keeping the boy alive, Mr Justice Ryder agreed the continued presence of his family would provide him with comfort and would be in keeping with the tenets of their faith.  However he said the child was at risk of further complications and infection as well as already being seriously ill.





THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

The boy was born prematurely and underwent surgery at just three months old to try to repair several holes in his heart.  He went on to live a normal life with his parents and three siblings but his health deteriorated rapidly after surgery in June to remove a band that had been put around his pulmonary artery.  The boy was put on ECMO.  After a month on the machine, doctors saw no improvement in his condition and his lungs and airways remained blocked while they had to give him increasingly heavy sedation. The longer patients are on ECMO, the more likely they are to develop infections and so suffer a sudden and painful death.



THE FAMILY'S POSITION

Clinicians determined that there was no prospect of his heart or lungs recovering and therefore no hope of survival."  But the boy’s parents refused to give their consent and at the last minute instructed lawyers to challenge the hospital’s application in the court.  



The boy’s mother said that although she accepted the medical evidence, she believed her son was still aware of her when she came into the ward, and that the family had not lost hope.  “Unexpected things can happen and because of [the boy’s] faith and my trust in God and my understanding that he is the one who gave him life he is the one alone who can end that life, I cannot agree to the lifeline of oxygen being taken away from him. God could intervene in a miraculous way.”  The mother said that although the family were not afraid of the boy dying, they did not believe it was their place or that of doctors to shorten his life and it would be a “betrayal of trust” if they did so.