Families ready for end of life gagging order battle against hospitals in Supreme Court

TWO families in end-of-life cases are set to battle in the Supreme Court against gagging orders which they say prevent them holding doctors to account.

The parents of Zainab Abbasi and Isaiah Haastrup were banned from naming medics treating their children after they became the centre of life support treatment disputes in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

Last year, both families won an appeal court battle which lifted restrictions, allowing them to tell the story of how their children’s treatment before life support was withdrawn. But the decision has been put on hold, as today the two NHS Hospital trusts involved are taking the case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to preserve staff anonymity.

Zainab, who was born with a “rare and profoundly disabling” neurodegenerative condition, died aged six at Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospital in September 2019 after doctors asked a judge to allow them to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against her parents wishes.

Her parents, Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, who are both doctors, said there was a “toxic environment” which led to her father’s arrest at her bedside in intensive care. They allege they have been gagged from revealing the “inappropriate attitude” of medics, the “lies” told by some clinicians giving evidence and details of how a senior physician refused to meet with consultants employed by the family.

Isaiah Haastrup, who suffered severe brain injuries after being starved of oxygen during birth, died aged 12 months in March 2018. His father Lanre said: “Through this case we have always wanted to shine the light of truth on what happened to Isaiah to seek justice for him.”

Mr Haastrup says the original gagging order prevents him from revealing details of negligence during his son’s birth, of the “financial motivation for taking the end of life route” and the circumstance of his last day alive.

According to the Court of Appeal the “essential case” of both NHS trusts is that if the parents “name any of the rel- evant staff, that might precipitate a groundswell of online harassment from interested third parties which could spill over into physical confrontation or even danger”. But judges found there were no ongoing issues at either hospital related to the cases, and concluded that the risk to their privacy was “low”.

The court ruled last March the risk to privacy was outweighed by the parents’ rights to freedom of speech.

A spokesman for Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “It’s important to emphasise that there have been no findings of fault against any member of staff involved. As an employer, we have a duty to protect the wellbeing and safety of our clinical teams who work tirelessly to support their patients.”

King’s College Hospital Trust could not be reached for comment. The Trust has previously settled a medical negligence claim and apologised to the family for events surrounding Isaiah’s birth, saying “improvements have been made in our maternity service” since then.