Supreme Court of Canada Denies Application for Leave to Appeal in Baby M

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the application for leave to appeal in D.L., et al. v. Director (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act), et al.  This was the case involving  two and a half year old Baby M who was permanently comatose and on life support  in an Alberta hospital.



In September 2012, an Alberta court directed, over the objections of Baby M's parents, that she be provided only with palliative care and that life-extending treatment be withdrawn.  Justice Ross concluded that "a life without awareness and totally supported by machines is not in accord with the best interests of any patient."



Notably, the parents were in custody and had been charged with serious criminal offences in relation to M (aggravated assault, criminal negligence and failing to provide the necessities of life). 



The physicians unanimously agreed that M’s condition was irreversible and that no further medical intervention was warranted. However, her parents refused to consent to the withdrawal of life support on the ground that their love for M and their religious beliefs precluded them from accepting the doctors’ recommendation. 



As I discussed (here and here), the court's decision was already upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.  And a stay was already denied by the Supreme Court of Canada.  



Indeed, the denial of appeal is unsurprising.  The case is easy.  The objective best interest analysis is bolstered by the child abuse case.  Since the parents were charged with inflicting the injuries that caused Baby M to be in a vegetative state, they were probably not the best decision makers.  They likely did not have Baby M's "best interest" in mind, but instead were likely concerned with their own exposure to increased criminal sanctions.