BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust v Godfrey & Anor (Rev 2) [2021] EWHC 163 (Fam) (29 January 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/163.html Cite as: [2021] EWHC 163 (Fam) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BRISTOL AND WESTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
MR OZZY GODFREY |
1st Respondent |
|
- and – |
||
DANNY GODFREY (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) |
2nd Respondent |
____________________
Miss Nageena Khalique QC (instructed by the Official Solicitor) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates: 29th January 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Hayden :
i. isoelectric trace (no brain electrical activity);
ii. severe burst suppression (isoelectric baseline with infrequent spikes of abnormal electrical activity) and;
iii. burst suppression with additional electrical seizures.
"It is recognised that hypothermia and administration of neuroactive drugs for sedation or seizure control may impact on the interpretation of neurological examination. DG's neurological examination and CFM remained profoundly
abnormal after rewarming to normal body temperature, and more than 72 hours since his last dose of morphine. He has had phenobarbitone during this time to treat seizures, but blood levels are modest and not at a level which could explain his neurological status."
"Lack of ability to benefit; the severity of the child's condition is such that it is difficult or impossible for them to derive benefit from continued life."
Dr A told me that his objectives were to try and minimise any pain that Danny might suffer, and to preserve his dignity. Dr A agreed that it is very difficult to assess pain in infants in Danny's condition.
"[22] Hence the focus is on whether it is in the patient's best interests to give the treatment rather than whether it is in his best interests to withhold or withdraw it. If the treatment is not in his best interests, the court will not be able to give its consent on his behalf and it will follow that it will be lawful to withhold or withdraw it. Indeed, it will follow that it will not be lawful to give it. It also follows that (provided of course they have acted reasonably and without negligence) the clinical team will not be in breach of any duty toward the patient if they withhold or withdraw it." …
"[39] The most that can be said, therefore, is that in considering the best interests of this particular patient at this particular time, decision-makers must look at his welfare in the widest sense, not just medical but social and psychological; they must consider the nature of the medical treatment in question, what it involves and its prospects of success; they must consider what the outcome of that treatment for the patient is likely to be; they must try and put themselves in the place of the individual patient and ask what his attitude towards the treatment is or would be likely to be; and they must consult others who are looking after him or are interested in his welfare, in particular for their view of what his attitude would be."
"As the authorities to which I have already made reference underline again and again, the sole principle is that the best interests of the child must prevail and that must apply even to cases where parents, for the best of motives, hold on to some alternative view."