Blog RSSBlog.

02/21/2018

Multiple Courts Decide Medical Futility Disputes Against Parents in 2018

In the past month, multiple courts have adjudicated medical futility conflicts between parents and clinicians concerning the appropriateness of life-sustaining treatment for a minor patient. In every single case, the courts ruled for the clinicians, holding that life-sustaining treatment was not in the patient’s best interest.


INES AFIRI:  In late January 2018, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the application of parents challenging the decision of the French courts. (Afiri & Biddari v France)  The French courts had already agreed with treating clinicians that continued mechanical ventilation for a 14-year-old girl was “unreasonable obstinacy.” As in the Gard case, the ECHR held that domestic law rights and remedies satisfied the Convention.


ISAIAH HAASTRUP:  in late January 2018, Family Division of the British High Court agreed with clinicians at King’s College hospital in London that further intensive care for 12-month-old Isaiah Haastrup was not in his best interests. Isaiah sustained “catastrophic” brain damage due to being deprived of oxygen at birth.


ALFIE EVANS:  In late February 2018, the Family Division of the British High Court agreed with clinicians at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool continued ventilatory support for 20-month-old Alfie Evans was no longer in his interests and that further treatment would harm his “future dignity.” Alfie remains in a semi-vegetative state from a degenerative neurological condition.


Alfie Evans


This entry was posted in Health Care and tagged . Posted by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD. Bookmark the permalink.

02/21/2018

Multiple Courts Decide Medical Futility Disputes Against Parents in 2018

In the past month, multiple courts have adjudicated medical futility conflicts between parents and clinicians concerning the appropriateness of life-sustaining treatment for a minor patient. In every single case, the courts ruled for the clinicians, holding that life-sustaining treatment was not in the patient’s best interest.


INES AFIRI:  In late January 2018, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the application of parents challenging the decision of the French courts. (Afiri & Biddari v France)  The French courts had already agreed with treating clinicians that continued mechanical ventilation for a 14-year-old girl was “unreasonable obstinacy.” As in the Gard case, the ECHR held that domestic law rights and remedies satisfied the Convention.


ISAIAH HAASTRUP:  in late January 2018, Family Division of the British High Court agreed with clinicians at King’s College hospital in London that further intensive care for 12-month-old Isaiah Haastrup was not in his best interests. Isaiah sustained “catastrophic” brain damage due to being deprived of oxygen at birth.


ALFIE EVANS:  In late February 2018, the Family Division of the British High Court agreed with clinicians at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool continued ventilatory support for 20-month-old Alfie Evans was no longer in his interests and that further treatment would harm his “future dignity.” Alfie remains in a semi-vegetative state from a degenerative neurological condition.


Alfie Evans


This entry was posted in Health Care and tagged . Posted by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.