The UK Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the parents of a 10 month-old boy to prevent the withdrawal of life-saving treatment, in the hopes that he could undergo experimental treatment in the United States.
The baby at the centre of this case suffers from a rare form of mitochondrial disease, which has led to muscle weakness and brain damage. Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital sought permission through the courts to withdraw life-support from the boy as they were of the opinion that he had no chance of improving and that treatment was only extending his suffering.
The parents of the boy believe he should be given the chance to undergo deoxynucleoside therapy, an experimental treatment in the USA, for which they have already raised funds. They argued that it would be an an unjustifiable interference with their status as parents and their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to override this decision. The Hospital submitted that the child had already suffered irreversible brain damage, so the treatment would not improve his quality of life. In the High Court, it was ruled that life-saving treatment should be withdrawn. Mr Justice Francis said the ruling was made with “the heaviest of hearts” but that it was in this boy’s best interests to have life-saving treatment withdrawn and only palliative care provided. This decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal.
An emergency hearing of the Supreme Court decided that artificial ventilation should be withdrawn and that the boy should be allowed to ‘die with dignity.’ Where rights under Article 8 of the parents and the child are at stake, the child’s rights must be the paramount consideration. The Court was bound to accept the factual findings of the trial judge, who had heard the evidence, and found that further treatment would be futile. The legal test which he applied was whether further treatment would be in the child's best interests and in his order he expressly found that it would not be. The Court confirmed that parents are not entitled to insist upon treatment by anyone which is not in their child's best interests.
The Court ended on a procedural note that suggested mediation as a first step in such cases where the parties could engage in confidential conversations.The Court believed it would have led to a greater understanding between the parents and the clinical team in this case.
The Court stayed its order to allow an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). An interim measure order has been granted by the European court to continue treatment while it considers detailed legal arguments. In response to this, the Supreme Court has directed a stay until midnight on 10 July 2017, however have urged the ECtHR to address the application by then as it considers further extension against the best interests of the child.
Click here for the judgement in Yates and Anor v Great Ormond Street for Children.