header-logo header-logo

24 February 2017
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Minor

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children Foundation NHS Trust v NO and others [2017] EWHC 241 (Fam), [2017] All ER (D) 135 (Feb)

The Family Division declared that it would be lawful and in the best interests of an eight-month-old girl not to receive or have given invasive or aggressive treatment in the form of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, inotropes, intubation and mechanical ventilation, and not to have the insertion of intra-osseous needles, central venous lines and further chest drains, despite her parents’ opposition. It was not in the child’s best interests to carry out the intervention and invasive treatments which her parents sought.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

mfg Solicitors—Hayley Pearce & Lauren Williams

mfg Solicitors—Hayley Pearce & Lauren Williams

Law firm mfg Solicitors announces promotions at Ludlow office

Womble Bond Dickinson—Richard Sharpe

Womble Bond Dickinson—Richard Sharpe

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints partner in Leeds residential team

Brabners—six promotions

Brabners—six promotions

Brabners adds six to partnership in record year for partner promotions

NEWS
Calls to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 have been renewed, with the Bar Council arguing the current threshold criminalises children too early and risks pushing them towards lifelong offending
The legal profession's AI challenge extends far beyond fabricated case citations, according to a warning about the next phase of technological risk
Law firms should use the transition period before the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) assumes anti-money laundering (AML) supervision to strengthen governance and compliance, experts have warned
Cross-border disputes increasingly demand creative approaches to gathering evidence, with litigators needing to look beyond traditional letters of request
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified the distinction between contracts of 'indefinite' and 'perpetual' duration, with potentially significant implications for commercial drafting
back-to-top-scroll