Baby ordered to die

[Big Lin]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7956845.stm
------------
Page last updated at 19:28 GMT, Saturday, 21 March 2009


Baby in right-to-life battle dies

The couple were refused permission to appeal a High Court ruling
A seriously ill baby, whose parents lost a court battle to keep him alive on a ventilator, has died.

The nine-month-old, known as "Baby OT", had a rare metabolic disorder and had brain damage and respiratory failure.

His parents had appealed against a ruling at London's High Court that it was in the boy's best interests to withdraw "life-sustaining treatment".

The British Medical Association (BMA) supported the doctors' actions, as did some Christian groups.

Baby OT was unable to breathe by himself and died at 1008 GMT after doctors withdrew his treatment.

His parents said they were "deeply distressed" by the decision and said the life of their "beautiful boy" was worth preserving.

'He died peacefully'

The couple said through their solicitor after the death was announced: "During his short time with us, OT became the focus of our lives. We were present during his last moments, together with [his] extended family.

"He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life."

Doctors treating him had said the boy's life was intolerable and his disability was such that his life had little purpose.


Ruth Wilson Jones: 'The worst pain anyone can ever imagine'
However his parents argued before he died "he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free".

The High Court ruling on Thursday gave doctors at an unnamed NHS trust powers to turn off the ventilator that kept Baby OT alive.

On Friday two Court of Appeal judges refused the couple permission to challenge the decision by Mrs Justice Parker made after a 10-day hearing.

The baby, his parents and the hospital trust involved in the case cannot be identified, as part of the court ruling.

'Very distressing'

Lord Justice Ward was told the couple had decided to wait outside the courtroom while the ruling was given as they could not face hearing the decision.

A spokeswoman for the BMA said: "Cases like this are very distressing and we have every empathy with the parents, but when the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount."

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff Peter Smith told the BBC: "We must not kill an innocent person under any circumstances, there is no moral justification for that.

"But when it comes to the end of life, we wouldn't take a vitalist view, and say somebody has got to be kept alive by most extraordinary means."

My heart goes out to the family, but also to the medical team

Professor Sam Leinster, University of East Anglia


Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of Christian Medical Fellowship, which represents some Christian doctors in the UK, said: "This tragic case highlights both how precious human life is but also that there are limits to medicine.

"Withdrawal of treatment decisions can be agonisingly difficult requiring great wisdom and sadly differences between parties can sometimes only be resolved by the courts.

Professor Sam Leinster of the University of East Anglia school of medicine, told the BBC: "My heart goes out to the family, but also to the medical team.

"The court is charged with weighing all the evidence that is put before them.

"There is a belief among us, it's kind of fed by everyone around us, that medicine has the answer to everything. But unfortunately there are occasions where medicine can't do anything."

[Clover]

Having read all the available details, I believe it was the correct decision.

I hope that the parents are able to move forward in their lives and realise that the medical profession have actually done them a favour by making this difficult decision for them.

[mindy]

Mar 23, 2009 17:10:12 GMT Clover said:

Having read all the available details, I believe it was the correct decision.

I hope that the parents are able to move forward in their lives and realise that the medical profession have actually done them a favour by making this difficult decision for them.

It's a sad case, but I think I agree with you. It doesn't sound like there was anything more that could have been done for him. What a shame.

[trubble]

What a great thing that the court system is there to help people who are tasked with an impossible decision. Gosh, I was useless when it came to having the family pets put to sleep despite their pain, I just kept in denial and prolonged the decision. It wasn't mine really, it was my parents but I didn't help at all by pretending to myself that the time the pets spent asleep and therefore not looking in pain was Quality Time.

A child....how would I ever manage such a decision? I would be so glad of a court's advice.

[Liberator]

By all accounts, the child was in constant pain with no chance of recovery to ever change. So the parents were guilty of inflicting torture just to enjoy watching thei 'pet' screaming in agony. They should never have been allowed to condemn the poor creature to life at all, and should be prosecuted for the abuse they inflicted on it.

[Deleted]

That's too hard, ratarsed! It sounds as though the parents had a distorted view of their child's suffering - either that or they had unrealistic hopes. I agree with Trubble; it is a good thing the court system is there to take over the decision making from those who cannot see things clearly.

[jbeukema]

It sounds like the right decision was made

[Synonym]

Apr 5, 2009 2:53:12 GMT Liberator said:

By all accounts, the child was in constant pain with no chance of recovery to ever change. So the parents were guilty of inflicting torture just to enjoy watching thei 'pet' screaming in agony. They should never have been allowed to condemn the poor creature to life at all, and should be prosecuted for the abuse they inflicted on it.

Do you really believe that that was the parents' motivation?

I think that vets have the right approach to these matters. They wouldn't artificially keep a dog alive in some suffering or zero-quality-of-life situation, they would do the humane thing and put it down. Also doctors, not parents or loved ones, are best-placed to make such assessments in an objective manner.

So I agree with the decision but it is trickier when considering how to handle the right of appeal. I do think that before a human patient is 'put down' the family do have a right to get a second opinion, even though the first assessment might be correct and the suffering will be prolonged during this process. But I think that ultimately there ought to be checks and balances in place, even if an extension of suffering is a consequence.

Re: FFFs last sentence, that is another issue again. If you concede that patients can be 'put down', is it enough to just agree with the withdrawal of aid and letting nature take its course, however long that may take? Shouldn't we have the 'guts', if you like, of advocating the active termination of the patient, in order to minimise suffering as much as possible, which after all, is the justification in the first place.