[tri-med] Doctors who wanted to let child die did not act illegally

An article on the UK situation I mentioned earlier

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?999

Doctors who wanted to let child die did not act illegally

BY FRANCES GIBB, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

A MOTHER failed yesterday to obtain a declaration that doctors had acted
illegally in refusing to try to keep alive her 12-year-old son.
They had acted against her wishes and without the authority of the courts,
she claimed.

But Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, and two other appeal judges made clear
that if doctors and relatives could not agree on treatment for a gravely ill
patient, they should take the matter to the courts.

In the latest conflict over medical treatment, the Court of Appeal and two
other appeal judges rejected an attempt by Carol Glass to have the courts
intervene over doctors' treatment of her seriously ill son, David.

The clash between Mrs Glass's family and medical staff arose last October at
St Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, after 15 relatives fought to resuscitate her
son as he lay close to death.

Mrs Glass, 38, said that doctors decided that her son, whose thirteenth
birthday is tomorrow, should be given pain-killing diamorphine and allowed
to die "with dignity".

She then sought a declaration in the High Court that Portsmouth Hospitals
NHS Trust acted beyond its powers when it decided last October that "nature
should be allowed to take its course".

But the appeal judges said yesterday that it would be inappropriate to give
Mrs Glass leave to challenge the original High Court ruling. The issue was
too "sensitive" a problem for the "blunt tool" of judicial review. Lord
Woolf, sitting with Lady Justice Butler-Sloss and Lord Justice Robert
Walker, said David was now back at the family home in Portsmouth and it
would be "an inappropriate task for the court" to intervene in the current
circumstances.

Should a similar crisis arise in the future, the mother could take further
legal action, they said.

Backing the ruling by the High Court judge, Mr Justice Scott Baker, Lord
Woolf said it "was perfectly right to adopt the course which he did. Any
other course would have been inappropriate".

David, who has recovered from the life-threatening illness which led to him
being hospitalised last October, is now "enjoying the sunshine".

When he was born hydrocephalus - water on the brain - was diagnosed; he
currently suffers from blindness, spastic quadriplegia and severe learning
difficulties.

Lord Woolf described him as "dearly loved and cared for most effectively by
his mother and her family", who wished him to live out his natural lifespan.
The judge said there was a breakdown in mutual trust between the family and
doctors at St Mary's which culminated last October in violent scenes at the
hospital involving doctors and certain family members, but did not involve
Mrs Glass.

It was later said that the family's actions in pulling him from his bed to
stimulate his breathing prevented David from dying. But doctors condemned
their actions as "cruel" and said David should have been allowed to die.

David would in future be treated at a Southampton hospital, the judge said.
If there was an emergency and he was taken to a Portsmouth hospital it was
agreed he would be transferred as soon as possible.

But Mrs Glass wanted reassurance that if he were to be treated in hospital
in future, her wish that he be kept alive would not be overridden by the
doctors. Lord Woolf said: "I understand fully why Mrs Glass might feel that
she would be comforted by a court taking that action, but I have no doubt it
would be inappropriate for the court to do so."

Later, Mrs Glass claimed a victory despite the judges' refusal to allow the
case to go to appeal. "I knew that this wasn't going to be clear cut.But I
am pleased about the part of the judgment when the judges made it clear that
doctors have got to at least listen to the parents and, if it can't be
resolved between parents and the medical staff, then go to court."

After the hearing Michael Wilks, chairman of the BMA's medical ethics
committee, welcomed the judges' emphasis on the "need for doctors to seek a
consensus with parents on the best interests of the child". In the "vast
majority of cases" that was achieved, he said.


                  Building ___ooOOoo__ Rainbows
                       www.trisomyonline.org
                  Families Helping Families On-line

Other related posts: