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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
The High Court has upheld the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition policy, rejecting claims that its deployment unlawfully interferes with privacy and protest rights
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
back-to-top-scroll