The parents of a brain-damaged baby who tried to breathe after being diagnosed as dead have lost the latest stage of a life-support treatment fight.
A High Court judge ruled today that ending life-support treatment was lawful and in the five-month-old boy’s best interests.
Mr Justice Poole, who had reconsidered evidence at the latest in a series of hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London, concluded that treatment was “futile”.
Hospital bosses had asked him to decide what moves were in the boy’s best interests.
The judge has ruled that the boy cannot be identified in media reports, and referred to him as “A” in his ruling.
Specialists treating the boy, who is on a ventilator, say he has suffered a “catastrophic” brain injury, has no prospect of recovering, and should be removed from the ventilator and given only palliative care.
The boy’s parents, who are Muslims of Bangladeshi origin, urged the judge to give him more time to “make progress”, or for “Allah to intervene”.
“Treatment is futile,” said the judge on Wednesday. “It cannot bring about any improvement in A’s condition.
“As long as he is kept alive he will suffer more burdens than benefits from being kept alive.”
Mr Justice Poole heard that the boy’s parents were interviewed by police after evidence suggested he had suffered what appeared to be “non-accidental injuries” during the summer.
No charges had been brought, but the couple remained under investigation.
The boy’s parents lost an earlier High Court fight when another judge, Mr Justice Hayden, decided treatment should end.
Court of Appeal judges ordered a fresh trial after upholding an appeal by the boy’s parents and concluding they had not had a fair hearing.
Mr Justice Poole oversaw a private hearing but allowed reporters to attend.
He said the case could be reported but ruled that neither the boy, who is in a specialist unit at a London hospital, nor doctors involved with his care could be identified in media coverage.
Lawyers representing bosses at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, who are responsible for the boy’s care, had asked for decisions about what moves were in his best interests.
The parents represented themselves at the trial before Mr Justice Hayden.
They told appeal judges that Mr Justice Hayden should have adjourned the trial to give them time to find lawyers.
Appeal judges agreed and said Mr Justice Hayden’s decision not to adjourn the trial was “unfair”.
Victoria Butler-Cole KC and barrister Arianna Kelly represented the couple for free at the latest trial.
Judges have heard the boy was declared dead in June after doctors diagnosed him as brain-stem dead.
He remained on a ventilator because his parents were unhappy with the diagnosis and litigation had begun.
Lawyers representing the trust initially asked a judge to make a declaration of death.
The boy started trying to breathe in early July, after a preliminary High Court hearing.
Specialists then rescinded “the clinical ascertainment of death” and trust lawyers asked Mr Justice Hayden to decide what moves were in the boy’s best interests.
Judges have heard that a series of brain-stem tests had shown “no activity”.
The baby had “gasped” and further tests showed there was brain-stem activity in one respect.
A senior doctor involved in the baby’s treatment said medics were trying to understand why he tried to breathe, after a series of brain-stem tests showed that he was dead.
The doctor told Mr Justice Poole that research had revealed a “few” similar cases internationally.
She said evidence showed that other patients had not survived.
The doctor said she expected an international panel of experts to examine evidence and give guidance.
