Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

MEDICAL TREATMENT: Re K (Medical Treatment: Declaration) [2006] EWHC 1007 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : re-k-medical-treatment-declaration-2006-ewhc-1007-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 9, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86423

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 9 May 2006)

The child, aged 5 months old, was very seriously ill, having been born with a severe case of the inherited condition congenital myotonica dystrophy (CMD). The mother suffered from CMD of moderate severity and at the time of the birth neither she nor the father was in a position to look after the child. The child had therefore been made the subject of an interim care order, following which parental responsibility for the child lay with the local authority, although it was exercised in close consultation with the parents. The child continued to deteriorate and would inevitably die as a result of her condition. The parents felt that she was suffering unacceptably and should be allowed to die peacefully. Because of the interim care order the parents could not act alone in consenting to withdrawal of treatment, therefore the doctors treating the child sought a declaration from the court. The court had granted permission to withdraw mechanical ventilation or other forms of life support; the child had survived this withdrawal of treatment, but continued to deteriorate, seeming to suffer distress and pain. The parents and the hospital trust now sought permission to allow the removal of feeding tube, which would ultimately lead to death, arguing that this, combined with palliative care, was in the child's best interests. The presence of the feeding tube, although the only way of providing her with nutrition, led to infection and septicaemia at intervals, placing further strain on her already damaged liver.

The declarations were granted. There was no realistic sense in which the child had anything other than a life dominated by regular pain, distress and discomfort. It was a mercy and in the child's best interests to cease to provide nutrition while she was still clinically stable, so that she could die in peace over a comparatively short space of time, relieved by palliative care.

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