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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll