Parents’ wish to treat child’s cancer with Chinese medicine overruled by Family Court

11 October 2015 by

71bl6-vngql-_sl1500_JM (a child), Re [2015] EWHC 2832 (Fam), 7 October 2015 – read judgment

Mostyn J, ruling in the Family Division that a child should receive surgical treatment for bone cancer against the wishes of his parents, has referred to Ian McEwan’s “excellent” novel The Children Act (Jonathan Cape 2014), which is about a 17 year old Jehovah’s Witness refusing a blood transfusion. The judge noted however that the book was in fact “incorrectly titled”:

a question of whether a medical procedure should be forced on a 16 or 17 year old should be sought solely under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and not under the Children Act.

This case on the other hand concerned a ten year old child, J. The NHS Trust sought permission to perform urgent surgery of a serious nature on his right jawbone, where he has a very rare aggressive cancer. Its medical name is a craniofacial osteosarcoma, presenting a tumour in the bone of about 4 inches long and 1½ inches wide. The unambiguous medical evidence before the court was that if it was not removed very soon then in 6 months to a year J would die “a brutal and agonising death”. The oncologist had spelt this out in unflinching detail:

 J will not slip peacefully away. The cancer will likely invade his nerve system affecting basic functions such as speaking, breathing and eating. His head will swell up grotesquely. His eyes may become closed by swelling. A tracheostomy may be needed to allow breathing. Above all, the pain will likely be excruciating.

Surgery would not be straightforward. It would involve harvesting skin and bone from his leg in order to rebuild the removed jaw bone. As a result J may be affected by lameness in future. He would need false teeth inserted in the lower right quadrant of his mouth. As he grows his face may develop a lop-sided appearance. He may suffer from chewing problems and may need to be on a softish diet in the long term. But it was estimated that he has a 55% – 65% chance of survival for 5 years if he underwent surgery. However, the expert evidence was that these were risks that should be taken given the “awful alternative”.

Neither J nor his parents would consent to this operation. The parents, who were from Poland, preferred to go along the Chinese medicine route. They were fearful that he would be so disfigured when he grows up that he would blame them for allowing the operation to go ahead.  But, as Mostyn J pointed out,  they had not appreciated that the prospect of him growing up was completely remote, indeed completely impossible, if they did not consent to his having this surgery.

The legal background

Under section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, a child has to be 16 before he or she can validly consent to a surgical procedure. The child in this case did not fit within the common law exception to this rule in that he was not Gillick competent, therefore he could not give or withhold consent over the wishes of someone with parental responsibility. In this case, of course, the parents refused, although the views and opinions of both the doctors and the parents had to be carefully considered by the court. In this case the judge had no doubt at all that the proposed procedure was in J’s interest.  He reached this conclusion bringing into the judicial evaluation exercise every detail of the written and oral evidence of the oncologist, whilst still giving full weight to the wishes of J as well as those of his parents.

It is a strong thing for me, a stranger, to disagree with and override the wishes of J and his parents. But I have absolutely no doubt that J must be given the chance, a very good chance, of a long and fulfilling life rather than suffering, quite soon, a ghastly, agonising, death.

This case was complicated by the fact that by the time of the hearing, J’s father had taken him to Poland to seek a second opinion. It may be that J was by this time habitually resident in Poland. However, the English court was still seised of the specific issue of J’s medical treatment, under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. Therefore, under Article 19 of this Regulation, the Polish court should decline jurisdiction in relation to this matter in favour of this court.

Mostyn J’s preliminary decision was that the NHS trust should be given permission to provide and administer all treatment to J (notwithstanding that his parents did not consent to such treatment on behalf of J), such treatment to include the complete removal of J’s craniofacial osteosarcoma. However, it was the judge’s view that the application should be framed as a combination of an application for a specific issue order and an application for declaratory relief under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. This would allow the application to be issued directly in the High Court, for which the family should receive legal aid.

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

Related posts:



  1. […] UKHRB has posted a full note of the case there is no point in us writing another […]

  2. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  3. […] Source: Parents’ wish to treat child’s cancer with Chinese medicine overruled by Family Court […]

Comments are closed.

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.




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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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 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


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: