This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/18/court-doctors-should-not-artificially-prolong-two-year-old-boys-life

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court says doctors should not 'artificially prolong' boy's life Parents 'devastated' as court says doctors should not 'artificially prolong' boy's life
(35 minutes later)
A high court judge has ruled that doctors can provide only palliative care to a “profoundly neurologically disabled” two-year-old boy. The parents of a “profoundly neurologically disabled” two-year-old boy say they are “devastated” by a high court judge’s decision to allow medics to provide only palliative care.
NHS hospital bosses with responsibility for the boy’s care had asked Mrs Justice Parker to rule that limiting treatment to palliative care would be lawful and in his best interests. They said Mrs Justice Parker’s ruling “effectively condemns their son to death”.
Specialists said the boy suffered from an incurable but unidentified neurological disorder and that his condition was deteriorating. NHS hospital bosses with responsibility for the boy’s care had asked Mrs Justice Parker to rule that limiting treatment to palliative care would be lawful and in the best interests of the boy.
Nurses said he had stopped smiling and that he grimaced but no longer giggled when tickled. Specialists said the little boy suffered from an incurable, but unidentified, neurological disorder – and that his condition was deteriorating. Nurses said he had stopped smiling and that he grimaced but no longer giggled when tickled.
Specialists said “further invasive interventions” would be distressing and burdensome for the child and would have little or no therapeutic benefit. Specialists said “further invasive interventions” would be distressing and burdensome for the little boy and would have little or no therapeutic benefit.
The youngster’s parents disagreed with the idea of providing only palliative care and implementing an “end-of-life plan”. They said all treatment options should continue to be available. The youngster’s parents disagreed with the idea of providing only palliative care and implementing an “end-of-life plan”.
Parker had overseen the case at a public hearing in the family division of the high court in London and made a ruling on Wednesday. They said all treatment options should continue to be available.
She said it was not in the boy’s best interests to “artificially prolong” his life. Mrs Justice Parker had overseen the case at a public hearing in the family division of the high court in London and made a ruling on Wednesday.
She said it was not in the little boy’s best interests to “artificially prolong” his life. The judge said the little boy could not be identified.
She said bosses at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust had asked her to make a ruling.
Solicitor Kavi Mayor, who is based at Jung & Co Solicitors and represented the couple, said his clients were “devastated”.
“They believe that the declarations made by the court effectively condemn their son to death,” said Mayor after the hearing. “They believe that their son’s life is worth saving.”
He added: “They are particularly concerned that a prognosis has been given by the doctors when no firm diagnosis has been made.
“They remain of the view that all possible treatment options should remain open to their son and that the NHS trust have, to date, not explored all possible options.”