Best interests, hard choices: The Baby C case

19 November 2015 by

Royal courtsJudgments in best interests cases involving children often make for heart-wrenching reading. And so it was in Bolton NHS Foundation Trust v C (by her Children’s Guardian) [2015] EWHC 2920 (Fam), a case which considered Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health guidance, affirming its approach was in conformity with Article 2 and Article 3 ECHR. It also described, in the clearest terms, the terrible challenges facing C’s treating clinicians and her parents.

C is her parents’ only child. On an icy and stormy night in January 2015, her mother went into labour. Her parents tried to drive to the hospital but C was born en route, in the car. When C arrived at the hospital she was in a critical condition. She had suffered a brain injury due to lack of oxygen at birth. C has been in intensive care for all her life, receiving continuous, high-level medical treatment. Her treating doctors were concerned that this treatment was not in her best interests. C’s parents wanted treatment to continue.

In his judgment, Peter Jackson J set out C’s very significant medical problems, along with the intrusive and intensive treatment in place to manage these. For example, C has insufficient respiratory drive and needs high level respiratory support. She has been intubated for much of her life. She cannot swallow or protect her own airway and so has been fed by tube that delivers food directly to her small intestine. But this becomes blocked or dislodged with some regularity. And so, tragically, the list goes on. Sadly, the evidence from C’s treating clinicians was that she did not appear to gain any pleasure at all from her environment but, on the other hand, she did respond to painful and distressing stimuli. She did not open her eyes and was thought to be both blind and deaf.

In light of the parents’ views, that treatment should continue, a second and independent medical opinion had been obtained. The conclusions of those clinicians were equally bleak – there was no additional treatment that could be offered elsewhere and it was considered that long-term ventilation was not in C’s best interests.

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance

This year the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has published updated guidance called ‘Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children’, which C’s treating clinicians had used as assistance in her case. This very detailed document traverses the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Equality Act 2010 and other legal sources, including Article 2 ECHR. Fortunately for the Royal College, Peter Jackson J found that the guidance was in conformity with previous court decisions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and with Articles 2 and 3. Central to C’s case were the following, taken from the guidance:

The principle of the sanctity of life is not absolute. Whilst Article 2 imposes obligations to give [life sustaining treatments], it does not impose an absolute obligation to provide such treatment if it would be futile and where responsible medical opinion is of the view that such treatment is not in the best interests of the patient” (referring to Re OT (a child) [2009] EWCA Civ 409, R (Burke) v the General Medical Council [2005] EWCA 1003 and NHS Trust A v Mrs B; NHS Trust B v Mrs H [2001] Fam 348)

and,

“[Life sustaining treatments] can lawfully be withheld or withdrawn for a patient who lack capacity in circumstances where commencing or continuing such treatment is deemed not to be in their best interests” (referring to Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821).

Peter Jackson J’s Decision

Peter Jackson J started with the fundamental proposition that there is a strong presumption that it is in a person’s best interests to stay alive. But, this is not an absolute and there are some cases where it will not be in the patient’s interests to receive life-sustaining treatment. He referred to Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2014] AC 591, the first case to be decided by the Supreme Court under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Aintree University Hospitals was another case involving withdrawal of treatment (in an adult), and the Supreme Court preferred to ask when it was in the patient’s best interests to give life-sustaining treatment rather than whether it is in his best interests to withhold or withdraw it. If the treatment is not in his best interests, then the court could not give its consent on the patient’s behalf and it would follow that withholding or withdrawing the treatment would be lawful.

Back in C’s case, it was reaffirmed that the ultimate determination of best interests is made by the Court and not by parents or doctors, though of course their views must be considered (more on C’s parents below). The best interests’ analysis must not be limited to medical matters. In Aintree University Hospitals the Supreme Court said that welfare in the widest sense must be looked at, “not just medical but social and psychological” [39].

Ultimately, Peter Jackson J was in no doubt that the Hospital’s application should be granted. That application was to progressively extubate C and not reventilate her if, as expected, she deteriorates. At that stage palliative care will be provided to ensure she dies with dignity and without further suffering. Peter Jackson J found that the benefits to C of continued treatment consists only in the prolongation of her life by intensive medical intervention while the burdens she has to bear are considerable and she has no quality of life beyond remission from pain and distress.

C’s Parents and Strong Judicial Words

The observations about C’s parents justify a few words. C’s parents had been visiting her twice a week. During those visits they did not engage with the medical staff and would rarely answer their calls. They had not meaningfully engaged with the Trust representatives or the Guardian in these proceedings. Peter Jackson J observed that C’s father was “exceptionally hostile to the treating team, expressing himself in the most vitriolic terms about the care she has been given, the doctors and nurses, the hospital and the political system generally” [22]. There was a well-placed recognition that, in cases of this kind, disagreement or mistrust between doctors and parents was nothing unusual. But, according to Peter Jackson J “the level of antagonism expressed by the father towards those treating his daughter is beyond my experience.”

Of course, C’s parents were free to express their beliefs but, as recognised by the Court, they risk “depriving C of options that exist where there is a working relationship” [24]. For example, it would not be possible to discharge C to a hospice for palliative care without agreement and close co-operation between parents, doctors and the hospice.

Reasons to Read this Case

This short judgment does nothing to change the law. While all best interests cases are undoubtedly challenging, this one was less fraught than some other cases. And that is precisely why it is case worth reading. It is a straightforward, comprehensible application of the existing law and it powerfully demonstrates the hugely difficult decisions that clinicians – and the courts – must grapple with, when the stakes could not be higher.

 

 

3 comments


  1. […] Best interests, hard choices: The Baby C case – Aintree University Hospitals was another case involving withdrawal of treatment (in an adult), and the Supreme Court preferred to ask when it was in the patient’s best interests to give life-sustaining treatment rather … […]

  2. K says:

    euthanasia !

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

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.

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 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 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 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 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: