At the end of June, Mr. Justice Baker of the High Court of Justice Family Division cited the Gard case in making a similar ruling.
HK was a 3-month old baby with catastrophic injuries. The court balanced the factors weighing in favor of treatment:(a) the parents’ wishes, and (b) the presumption in favor of life. Again that, the court weighed the fact that (c) treatment offered no prospect of benefit, and (d) treatment probably imposed suffering.
The court ruled that it was lawful and in HK’s best interest that:
1. There be no neurosurgery intervention.
2. That there be no CPR.
3. That there be no escalation of treatment.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.