Court report: Parents oppose life-support decision

Case name NHS Trust v Baby X
Case number [2012] EWHC 2188 (Fam)
Judge Hedley J
Location High Court (Family Division)

In this case, Hedley J considered whether Baby X, who had suffered extensive brain damage following a catastrophic accident, should be removed from a life-supporting ventilator. The hospital where X received treatment argued that it was not in his best interests to remain on the ventilator as the damage was irreversible. X’s parents opposed this view, arguing that X should be given the chance to improve and was showing signs of doing so, and that their faith prevented them from consenting to remove the ventilator.

Hedley J referred to Wyatt v Portsmouth NHS Trust [2006] in which the court emphasised the best interests of the child, the paramountcy principle, and the presumption in favour of prolonging life but that this is not irrefutable. X’s doctor and medical experts stated that X lacked awareness of his surroundings due to his comatose state, that there was no evidence he felt pain, and that the responses seen as improvement by his parents were caused by the injury. They agreed it was unlikely X would make any improvements, and the Trust’s position was that it was not in X’s interests to keep him on the ventilator. Hedley J concluded that X’s welfare required the ventilator to be removed, taking the preservation of life as a starting point and balancing X’s unconsciousness, the doctors’ views that improvement was unlikely and unrealistic, and the risk of deterioration resulting from remaining on the ventilator.