Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

MEDICAL TREATMENT: An NHS Trust v SR [2012] EWHC 3842 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:38 PM
Slug : medical-treatment-an-nhs-trust-v-sr-2012-ewhc-3842-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 21, 2013, 05:04 AM
Article ID : 101435

(Family Division, Bodey J, 21 December 2012)

The 7-year-old boy suffered from a malignant brain tumour and the multi-disciplinary team of child cancer experts recommended that following surgery he required radiotherapy and chemotherapy. That treatment package generally had an 80-86% success rate.

While the father and children's guardian agreed with the treatment plan, the mother did not and sought alternative treatment methods which would avoid or reduce the detrimental long-term side effects of the treatment proposed. The treating clinicians explained the importance of starting the treatment without delay in order to minimise the risk of residual cancer cells spreading and the preparatory work that would need to be done including making a mask to hold the child's head still and undertaking play therapy to prepare him for the demanding experience. Delays, however, occurred due to the mother's wish to change hospitals and her failure to present the child for medical appointments. The mother then went missing with the child but following a court order they were located and the child was placed in the care of the father. The NHS Trust brought urgent proceedings to determine the issue.

During the course of the hearing it was discovered that the child had a further cancerous tumour which required sugery. Once again the mother opposed that course but the court ordered that the surgery should take place in the best interests of the child without delay. The mother's appeal was dismissed and surgery took place on the following day. Proceedings in relation to post-operative care were therefore adjourned for that to take place.

On the basis of the evidence of the experts whose knowledge and experience in this field was highly impressive the balance of advantage and disadvantage tilted well in favour of radiotherapy and chemotherapy notwithstanding the detrimental side effects.

That decision was final. Whilst recognising that the mother's right to a fair trial was absolute, in all the circumstances: (i) she had a sufficient opportunity overall to put forward a case for complementary treatment for the child; and (ii) it was not unfair for this decision to be taken without there being any pre-ordained opportunity for her to apply at a further hearing.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from