Tribunals may have spared parents of Charlie Gard false hope

♦ Charlie Gard’s parents may have been spared months of “false hope” and legal wrangling if tribunals were used instead of courts, specialists have suggested.

Expert panels deciding similar cases could help “avoid the worst features of enormous public discussion and the enormous length and expense”, Dominic Wilkinson, the Oxford University physician, told the Press Association. Professor Wilkinson, who focuses on newborn intensive care, added: “They could make decisions that wouldn’t be subject to multiple levels of appeal.

“Professionals fear other cases of disagreement will mean widespread social media interest, attracting ill-informed offers of treatment and comments that may actually be giving patients and families false hope. “That would be very regrettable.” He said existing NHS ethics committees lacked legal decisionmaking powers. Details of family court hearings are largely private, in stark contrast to the Gard saga. Sir James Munby, the Family Division president, published guidance on making family hearings more transparent in 2014.

Courts in England have considered 10 cases involving contested medical treatment of children so far this year, according to an Observer investigation.

David Burrows, a family law specialist said: “You could ask, ‘are lawyers and judges the best people to provide answers?’ In a case like this, you’re assessing a medical question. Why not just have a panel of doctors in the first place?”