REVEALED: The 22 ‘Charlie Gard’ cases that pitched desperate parents against surgeons
JUDGES have intervened on nearly two dozen occasions in the past five years when parents and doctors have clashed over keeping a seriously ill child alive, new figures reveal.
Data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and seen by The Mail on Sunday shows that the courts dealt with 22 cases concerning ‘withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment’.
While a handful, including the cases of Charlie Gard, and more recently Tafida Raqeeb, made headlines, the rest were decided with little or no publicity.
They include an 11-year-old boy with heart and lung failure whose parents were told their hopes of him recovering enough for a transplant were ‘not realistic’ and a boy aged two left paralysed and severely brain damaged after a car crash whose mother argued life support should continue.
Official judgments have been published in 12 of the 22 cases, of which this newspaper was able to review ten. Apart from the case of Tafida, a five-year-old girl who has been on life support since suffering a brain injury in February, the courts substantially agreed with doctors that the youngster should be allowed to die.
Last night, Christian Concern – which obtained the figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – accused judges of ‘disregarding’ the views of parents and their right to decide what was best for their own child.
Andrea Williams, the campaign group’s founder, said: ‘What it shows is that when parents believe their child should continue to be given a chance of life, their views are usually disregarded. But at the end of the day, children belong to the parents, not to the state.’
But doctors argue that the rulings are based on clear evidence that keeping a child alive with no hope of recovery often only prolongs their pain and distress. While the law provides a ‘strong presumption’ that life should be maintained, judges are asked to decide what is in the best interest of the child.
Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that Tafida’s parents could take her to Italy for treatment that might prolong her life. Lawyers for parents Mohammed Raqeeb and Shelina Begum, who are Muslims, claimed the youngster could make a partial recovery and live for ‘ten or 20 years’, but doctors at The Royal London Hospital said there was no prospect of a meaningful recovery and i t was kinder to let her die.
Mr Justice MacDonald ruled that because Tafida could not feel pain and was not suffering, it was right the decision ‘be taken by a parent in the exercise of their parental responsibility’.
Though the decision may encourage more parents of desperately sick children to challenge doctors who want to withhold life- sustaining treatment such as ventilation and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), few have been successful in the past.
Charlie Gard, who had a rare genetic disorder, died two years ago aged 11 months after Court of Appeal judges allowed doctors to stop providing lifesupport despite his parents raising £1.3 million to send him to the USA for a trial treatment. Last April, the parents of 23-month-old Alfie Evans lost their legal battle to prevent Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool from withdrawing ventilation.