Child radiotherapy case: “one cannot enjoy even diminished quality of life if one is not alive”.

19 January 2013 by

Sally+Roberts+arriving+at+the+High+CourtAn NHS Trust v SR [2012] EWHC 3842 (Fam) – read judgment

The highly publicised case about a seven year old boy whose estranged parents could not agree about the necessary treatment following surgery for his brain tumour was resolved by a firm ruling in favour of orthodox medicine by Bodey J, four days before Christmas.

The facts of the case are well known, but it may be instructive to lay out some of the details of the procedure that follows in a situation like this, and to point up the approach of the courts to a matter where orthodox science lies flat against the claims of complementary medicine. Where the life of a child is at stake, there is no polite equivocation between the two.

Background

Briefly, the mother would not agree to the recommended post-operative course of chemo- and radiotherapy (carrying an 80% chance of success), believing instead that her son would fare better with alternative forms of treatment and would avoid or reduce the undoubtedly detrimental long-term side effects of the treatment package being proposed. In a serious matter such as this, where the parents cannot agree, an application has to be made to the court for a declaration that the procedure in question is lawful. That involves a decision as to the child’s best interests, being the court’s paramount consideration. Hence it was incumbent on the NHS Trust concerned to apply to the High Court to determine the issue of N’s treatment following on from his brain surgery two months previously.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the standard and routine procedures which follow and are complementary to such surgery, the aim being to reduce the possibility of microscopic cancerous cells remaining and to minimise the risk of relapse. However when this was explained to N’s mother she refused to cooperate and shortly after 28 days post-surgery (the optimum period to commence treatment) she went missing with the child.

The Court proceedings

Hogg J requested the media to assist in trying to help find them. In the event, they were located on Thursday 6th December 2012. N was removed from the mother and placed briefly into foster care. He was then handed into the care of the father.  A further MRI scan demonstrated the existence of cancerous tumour in the surgical cavity in N’s brain, which necessitated urgent ‘second look surgery’ to identify and remove whatever tumour was found. However the mother opposed surgery even though her own expert recommended it. She appointed another legal team and a second expert who reviwed the situation and told the judge that the boy needed to get on with his post-operative treatment, or he would not survive the disease:

Whatever the mum has read or listened to or blogged or whatever…you come across a lot of this, so a lot of websites … a lot of communication sites from parents who share all sorts of different experiences of how they’ve cured their child of X, Y or Z, and parents who are susceptible to this sort of stuff will get hooked onto it very very [sic] easily. But actually it doesn’t make sense; this boy has a highly malignant disease and he will die of it very quickly unless somebody gets his hands on him and treats him.

Surgery therefore went ahead during the week of that hearing. When the court sat again for further consideration and determination of the issue about radiotherapy, another expert on the mother’s side (a specialist in ‘agricultural, environmental and health sustainability’) produced a report about the efficacy of complementary medicine in a case such as N’s. Under cross examination however it was not shown that these were sufficient. The therapies put forward were either experimental, or else used with patients who are in relapse. According to the father’s expert, Dr A, none of the treatments proposed had been

subjected to the rigorous clinical trials which would need to have been carried out before approving a course of treatment for a child.

Despite the mother’s view that  the orthodox view of oncologists (such as Dr. A)  was the product of indoctrination, Bodey J had no hesitation in preferring the view of the NHS Trust and making a declaration accordingly. In summing up the balancing exercise, he points out, pithily although not unkindly:

The balance of advantage and disadvantage tilts well in favour of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, notwithstanding the detrimental side-effects. One cannot enjoy even a diminished quality of life if one is not alive.

In a stark case such as this, it is not a question of the court considering evidence as to research and experimentation going on out there; nor that there are ideas and possibilities being floated, nor even that there are reported success stories of cures occurring without the use of radiotherapy and / or chemotherapy. As Ward LJ said at paragraph 38 of AVS v NHS Foundation Trust [2011] COPR Con. VOL. 219:

 if there is no one available to undertake the necessary operation, the question of whether or not it would be in the patient’s best interests for that to happen is wholly academic.

Furthermore, Bodey J had to take into consideration not only that N’s mother strongly opposed surgery which all the experts (including two instructed on her behalf) had advised was necessary to save his life  but also that her evidence showed that she was against prophylactic anti-emetics, believing that the sickness is or may be a good thing, as it is nature’s way of the body removing toxins. For this reason, he had to draft the order in terms that the treating clinicians were to act on the consent to further treatment given by the father alone.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

 

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: