‘Following the Strasbourg Court’s request for interim measures for the UK – which means the hospital may not take Charlie Gard off life support as the Supreme Court has allowed it to do – the Supreme Court arranged a short hearing to take place Monday 19 June, to give directions. The Strasbourg Court has now put in place a further request that treatment and nursing care be continued beyond its original deadline of 19 June (see the press release from Strasbourg here: Gard and Others v. the UK) . This is because that Court has to consider the parents’ application that the case does not just concern Charlie’s right to die with dignity but their rights under Article 8 as his parents to be afforded respect for their decisions as to what is in Charlie’s interests.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Doctors have been told to continue providing life-support treatment to a terminally ill baby at the centre of a high-profile legal battle for another three weeks – to give judges at the European court of human rights time to analyse the case.’
The Guardian, 19th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
In re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)[2017] EWCA Civ 410
‘C, a child aged nine months, suffered from a rare inherited mitochondrial disease which led to dysfunction of several of his organ systems. His condition had progressed since his birth resulting in irreversible brain damage and an inability to move his arms or legs or to breathe unaided. His life expectancy was measured in months. His parents sought to obtain an alternative treatment, known as nucleoside therapy, that was available in the United States of America. The NHS trust which ran the hospital where C was treated applied pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court for declarations that it was lawful and in C’s best interests for his artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only, and for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy. The judge granted the application and made the declarations sought, finding that the body of experienced medical opinion available to him, save for the doctor offering the nucleoside therapy, was unanimous to the effect that the prospect of nucleoside therapy having any benefit was effectively zero and would be futile. C’s parents sought permission to appeal on the grounds that (i) where parents put forward a viable treatment option for their child, that option could only be overriden by the court if it was established that the pursuit of that option was likely to cause the child to suffer “significant harm”, and the usual “best interests” test did not apply; and (ii) the judge had no jurisdiction to grant an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second clinical team from carrying out a treatment that the latter had offered in the reasonable exercise of its professional judgment.’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The European court of human rights is due to decide on Tuesday whether it will hear legal arguments from the family of a severely ill baby who want him to be sent to the US for treatment.’
The Guardian, 13th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Doctors in London must continue to treat a terminally ill baby at the centre of a life-support legal battle until midnight on Tuesday, judges at the European court of human rights have said.’
The Guardian, 9th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The parents of a severely ill baby will take their legal battle to an emergency hearing at the supreme court next week in the hope of persuading judges that he should be treated in the US.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A woman has asked a judge to give doctors permission to stop providing life-support treatment to her severely ill daughter.’
The Guardian, 29th May 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A “bullying” mother robbed her teenage son of his childhood by convincing him he was dying, a judge has said.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th May 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The parents of a baby with a rare genetic condition have urged appeal judges not to stand in the way of their “only remaining hope” of his survival.’
BBC News, 23rd May 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In the decision today is FB -v- Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 334 the Court of Appeal made important observations about the duty of care owed by junior doctors.’
Zenith PI Blog, 12th May 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A senior surgeon with “poor vision” accidentally removed a woman’s ovary instead of her appendix and then told bosses it was a “trifling error”.’
Daily Telegraph, 12th May 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A family member of a victim of the “biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS” plans to launch a landmark legal case amid allegations of a Government cover-up.’
The Independent, 10th May 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The parents of a baby with a rare genetic condition have launched an appeal after a judge said it was in their son’s “best interests” for life support to be withdrawn.’
The Independent, 2nd May 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Hundreds of private patients of Ian Paterson, the rogue breast surgeon facing jail for mutilating women, may be denied compensation due to a legal loophole.
Daily Telegraph, 29th April 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024