header-logo header-logo

Life support can be withdrawn in tragic case

12 April 2017
Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Doctors can withdraw life-support treatment for an eight-month old baby, Charlie Gard, who suffers a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, the High Court has held.

The baby’s condition causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. After carefully considering evidence for three days, Mr Justice Francis said it was in Charlie’s best interests for artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy and for him to be provided with palliative care only.

He paid tribute to the “absolute dedication” of Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, who had managed to crowdfund £1.2m to seek experimental treatment in the US.

In reaching his decision in GOSH v Gard (Case No. FD17P00103), Francis J applied the “intellectual milestones” set out in Wyatt v Portsmouth NHS Trust [2005] EWHC 117 (Fam) to decide the child’s best interests, “looking at the question from the assumed point of view of the child”.

He said the parents had “sadly, but bravely, acknowledged that the quality of life that Charlie has at present is not worth sustaining”. After discussion with doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), the US doctor had agreed any improvement was “unlikely”. There was unanimity among experts that nucleoside therapy could not reverse structural brain damage. The GOSH doctors said they believed Charlie was experiencing pain.

Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Pension sharing orders (PSOs) have quietly reached their 25th anniversary, yet remain stubbornly underused. Writing in NLJ this week, Joanna Newton of Stowe Family Law argues that this neglect risks long-term financial harm, particularly for women
A school ski trip, a confiscated phone and an unauthorised hotel-room entry culminated in a pupil’s permanent exclusion. In this week's issue of NLJ, Nicholas Dobson charts how the Court of Appeal upheld the decision despite acknowledged procedural flaws
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
back-to-top-scroll